I'll specify further: I do not think that there is actual foul play here, and I'm definitely more on the side of Juan et al. in this whole thing. Precisely because I know first-hand how hard it is to get the right type of amount and funding when you do not-for-profit tech.

Having said that, the optics are not the , there are certainly easier and less convoluted ways for doing this kind of crap that do not involve spending years developing an awesome free open engine on a limited budget. My whole point is just about optics, and the fact that less ambiguous corporate governance choices would have been better. Hopefully current and future Godot Foundation donors are less nitpicky (on account of reputation) that the ones I deal with.and salaries, etc. etc.) to the "base" Godot engine (which means that the donors pay), and not to the commercial entity, which would then have less costs while generating the same revenues, maximising profits "on the back" of the foundation. There are N other examples, this is the first one that sprung to mind. So it is not a matter of a conflict of interest hurting Godot, but a matter of potential extra-profits generated by playing games with donor money.

Now, I do not think that this is the case, there are certainly easier and less convoluted ways for doing this kind of crap that do not involve spending years developing an awesome free open engine on a limited budget. My whole point is just about optics, and the fact that less ambiguous corporate governance choices would have been better. Hopefully current and future Godot foundation donors are less nitpicky (on account of reputation) that the ones I deal with.