It was the "EULA" created by people in _this forum_ that produced the hack (which included me as well as others). It was our wish that people would not sell hacked cameras (or the hack itself). It's very likely not legally enforceable etc., but the deal was: "here's a hack that saves you a lot of money, we did the work for free, but we have one wish: please do not sell this hack or a camera with this hack installed". That was the only request. We didn't ask for donations, we (at least I) never attempted to make _any_ money with this, all I wanted was to limit the financial gain of anyone related to this hack. You could sell the camera without a modification but with a word like "and here's a link how you can upgrade", but that's a different thing to selling the camera with the hack pre-done. (In detail, by telling people that the hack can easily be done on their own, the financial value of the hack diminishes very quickly, because everyone can do it. If you sell the camera pre-hacked, that knowledge is not necessarily known to the buyer, so they may be inclined to pay more vs. a regular, unhacked E4. Hence you had a financial gain.)
I find it a little bit sad that we're back to the discussion of whether FLIR approves this hack or not. That wasn't the question.
(Sorry, I don't want to fuel any drama.)