It's the same way of adoption as it is done with webkit. Now let me try to apply your logic: webkit is not free software, because otherwise Digia would not have merged it into Qt. Gnome heavily integrates with webkit-gtk, which also incorporates webkit (that apple crap, you know). Now you also can say, that gnome uses f** non-free software. Agreed?
And if you know so much about phonons history, you also should know that phonon actually was developed by kde developers to get away with relying on one solution for audio (just remember arts). As it turned out to be quite good Qt decided to make it available for everyone using qt and bundled it. They merged kdes phonon from time to time to stay up2date.
Maybe we let Honton himself answer this question:
You just debunked yourself.
Nice try. It was funny but also a bit sad to read. You haven't got a clue, yet. But don't worry it is not because you are stupid, it is because KDE and Digia failed to communicate in a fair way.
Ley me help you. The Qt CLA is what makes Digia saying no to free software patches, it is KDE-Qt agreement that is limited to re-licensing of Qt free for linux. If you still don't get it I can make it into a pixie book. Do you need a nice easy to understand picture or are you good now?
Nobody claims LGPL is non-free. Are you able to understand the simple FACT that the Qt CLA asks for an additional broad license which by nature is non-free, so that Qt can be dual licensed? If not, then good luck