1. I have to say that I emailed Julian Smart, the creator of wxwindows a few times (I too had lots of questions) and was very impressed with the replies; disregarding technical merit for the moment, I would recommend wxwindows politically.
The QT interest mailing list is also excellent.
2. I know you said "apart from the licence", but I also found this to be an important factor. Basically, if you want to create free software (libre) and distribute it, then you can. However if you want to create commercial software, you can with wxwindows but can't with QT unless you buy the full product (expensive).
Correct.
3. I personally think (subjective!) that the C++ implementation is cleaner in wxwindows and doesn't need things such as MOC. It also promises to be as platform independant as possible.
I don't know enough about wxwindows to give a judgement, but I find it hard to believe the implementation is cleaner than Qt. The comments I've heard suggest it's not really a class leading implementation, and I can tell you from first hand experience that Qt is. The moc thing is a red herring - it's just about invisible if you use Qt Designer (which nearly everyone does, AFAICT). Personally I prefer to use Qt from Python, and it shines brighter there than from C++. PyQt is the best scripting/GUI solution out there as far as I know.
I think that a lot of people are enthusiastic about QT because it is used by the "darling" crowd for KDE. I have no objections with KDE (I use it about 50% of the time) or QT, but like I said earlier we need to stay as objective as we can.
The reason a lot of people are enthusiastic about Qt is because it's a work of art. Really. Compared to every other GUI toolkit out there (that I have used or have heard first hand reports of), it's a superb piece of work. -- "...our desktop is falling behind stability-wise and feature wise to KDE ...when I went to Mexico in December to the facility where we launched gnome, they had all switched to KDE3." - Miguel de Icaza, March 2003