cybereality maybe, but unlike those companies, it looks like Godot leadership doesn't even want to admit that they operate those commercial companies in official capacity, for some reason or another. None of the companies I listed directly announce those companies on Godot's official website (which would satisfy the transparency principle behind Godot), yet I don't see this kind of transparency in Godot.
For instance, both W4 Games and Ramatak describe themselves as "Godot veterans", completely omitting the fact that they actually represent Godot PLC on the front page. Yes, somewhere they have to say that they represent Godot PLC down the road, but a lot of people just read the headlines.
I mean, I can even quote Ramatak blog post here to showcase the difficulties and dangers of this to the Open Source part of Godot:
Running a company as part of an open source project is a delicate balancing act. On one hand, you want to ensure that the company is successful and profitable. On the other hand, you want to maintain the health and sustainability of the open source project. After all, if the project fails, the company will also fail. For Ramatak Inc. and the Godot engine, this means being mindful of how the company’s actions impact the open source community and making sure that the project stays open, accessible, and inclusive for everyone.
Since talk is cheap we set up Ramatak Inc. as a “Public benefits company”. For Ramatak this means that we will not be allowed to, for instance, “take back” contributions by making a piece of code we once released under an open source license proprietary in the future. In this way we feel that we can be a trustworthy member of the community.
This is the words of Hein-Pieter van Braam, member of Godot PLC. If the company is considered as part of an open-source project (here Godot), then why wouldn't they announce those companies at Godot's official website as well? Even then, most of this is actually based solely on trust and transparency of those commercial companies founded by Godot leadership. In other words, who exactly is going to ensure that those companies would work for the "public benefit"? I don't see transaction and work reports, nothing.
For instance, if we take Ubuntu, then they openly say that they are funded by Canonical:
I hope you'll agree that Godot is not analogous to Linux kernel. Godot is an end product and organization first and foremost. If Godot leadership finds it necessary to delve into commercial realms, then why making Godot non-profit in the first place?
In order to make this process truly legitimate, the other solution is very simple as well: Juan Linietsky, Ariel Manzur, Rémi Verschelde, HP van Braam must not represent Godot PLC (Open Source part of Godot), who may have an ability to collectively control all funds, and let other community members make major decisions for Godot (believe me, there are enough of talented contributors out there). This is not to say that Juan, Ariel, Rémi etc. wouldn't be allowed to contribute to Godot of course, but they wouldn't be the final decision makers in this case.
In either case, there likely exist other companies founded by Godot PLC. If you truly care about Godot as an Open Source project, Godot community should definitely monitor Godot leadership activity in this regard. The number of those companies that are founded by Godot PLC (this is about leadership who is able to control all funds/donations, not community specifically) is alarmingly abnormal for an Open Source project like Godot, I don't understand why they wouldn't just team up and work for the same cause, via a single commercial company, with full transparency.
I'm sorry, but the above is exactly the reason why Godot is described as hypocritical open-source project in the game development industry as a whole, including the ad hominem responses that I constantly receive from Godot followers. Here's just one example of such an opinion, even from within Godot community:
Godot's community and leadership are so hypocritical sometimes. I hate how they pretend to not give a shit about copyright and yet act like vigilantes.
I do know they definitely don't give a shit about their contributors and even try to erase their existence whenever there's a divergence of opinions.