I don't disagree that having a foundation + backing by multiple commercial vendors would be better. This certainly works for the Linux kernel and gcc. However, given that there is far less interest in desktop technologies on Linux (not counting Google's Chromebook), we have far less interested commercial parties to provide associated backing. The reality is that there is only one company: Digia. In contrast to the amount of effort put in by Diga into QT, the amount of effort put in by Red Hat into GTK and Gnome is miniscule. Canonical, with its Unity/Mir efforts within Ubuntu is quite likely a rounding error in contrast to QT.
An idealogical stance along the lines of "must have more than one commercial backer before we use it" does not square with the reality of the present situation. Having one commercial backer for an open-source project is better than no backers. Having any commercial backer is also a rare luxury: the vast majority of open source projects is run entirely by volunteers.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds