Using that license just leaves things totally clear and unambiguous, if you're using the language you must already be okay with the license. I've worked with a number of companies that just don't want to touch anything *GPL with a 10 foot pole in Go where static linking is non-optional other than over a CGO bridge (which makes Qt's own LGPL usage palatable). This may be a sticking point for them even with the exception (just because of the extra work required in getting legal clearance, not because the license as written actually harms them).
License aside, this is a pretty great library and this is what I think is the most practical solution to providing a cross-platform GUI solution for Go in that it puts all the heavy lifting of platform independence on Qt without having to expose the entire large Qt API to Go via wrappers.
I was actually working on something like this a few months ago (mentioned in HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6055043) but got side-tracked due to serving jury duty on a 6 week trial (ugh). This solution is a lot further along and benefits greatly from Go 1.2 support of compiling cpp files in CGO (mine was being written against Go 1.1 and required an extra intermediate static library build step). I may possibly continue working on mine anyway just to side-step the licensing issue altogether (which, again, I think is more of a perception problem than an actual practical problem, but still a problem).