Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2007 15:52 UTC, submitted by zaboing
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "A few months ago, the GNOME Mobile Platform was announced to the public. One of the main forces behind the launch of this initiative was Nokia, which uses a lot of GNOME-components in its Linux-based Internet Tablets Nokia 770 and N800. During this years GUADEC Andreas Proschofsky had the chance to sit down with Carlos Guerreiro, Nokias Manager for Open Source Software, to talk - amidst other things - about the not so different needs of personal computers and mobile devices, about the necessity for GTK+ 3.0 and the impact of the iPhone launch."
Thread beginning with comment 262859
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Qt
by rhavenn on Sun 12th Aug 2007 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Qt"
rhavenn
Member since:
2006-05-12

My whole issue with KDE (and thus Qt) is that I think it is unacceptable to expect commercial developers to embrace a platform where they have to pay per-developer licensing fees to a single company for closed source commercial applications. That is why I currently cannot support KDE, at least in the context of business or commercial applications. I think it's great as a platform for those that demand all of their software be free or open source, but I'm not interested in that sort of platform.


I don't get this attitude. You want to build a closed source app off of which you supposedly want to make money, but you don't want to pay the license fees? So, you want your cake and you want it for free? Qt is a high quality product and the reason it is is because the core team is able to work on it, get paid to work on it and that's all they do. If you open source your app so others can get it for free then QT has no issue with you. So, open your app and license the support of it or whatever. Another thing, they sell you commercial licenses for support purposes so you can call and they will help you out. It isn't all just for the right of closing your app.

Edited 2007-08-12 21:24

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Qt
by Temcat on Sun 12th Aug 2007 22:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

A paid-for toolkit is OK. It's just that the price might be too high for many shops. If even Adobe, VMWare and Nero chose GTK+, not Qt for their Linux software, what can be said about smaller shops?

Also, it's perfectly OK, both morally and legally, to build closed source software without paying license fees. For that you have BSD- and LGPL-licensed libraries and toolkits.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Qt
by segedunum on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If even Adobe, VMWare and Nero chose GTK+, not Qt for their Linux software, what can be said about smaller shops?

Well, one is entitled to ask if any of the software from those companies matters. They all just seemed to wheel in developers to knock together Linux versions of their software, and those people they employed had a preference for GTK.

In the case of Adobe, we all have good PDF readers that come with our desktop environments. Who needs Acrobat? There are a ton of things I can do with K3B that I can't with Nero, and K3B is free and is shipped with my system. Both Adobe and Nero have missed the boat there.

In the case of VMware, given that their software runs on multiple platforms I think they're silly not to use a cross-platform toolkit so they don't have to worry about such issues. Maintaining a GTK codebase for Linux and a Windows codebase for Windows for their console user interface just strikes me as daft. With Qt they could have exactly the same codebase between platforms, and run it on a Mac as well.

The latter doesn't seem to be a choice that has been made out of common sense.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Qt
by leos on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

A paid-for toolkit is OK. It's just that the price might be too high for many shops. If even Adobe, VMWare and Nero chose GTK+, not Qt for their Linux software, what can be said about smaller shops?


On the other hand, Opera, Google (Earth), Skype, and VirtualBox chose Qt.. I don't think there is overwhelming evidence that commercial developers prefer one or the other.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Qt
by Moochman on Mon 13th Aug 2007 03:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Adobe used Qt to make Photoshop Elements and Album, IIRC.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Qt
by Moochman on Mon 13th Aug 2007 03:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

If you open source your app so others can get it for free then QT has no issue with you. So, open your app and license the support of it or whatever.

Exactly. But at the same time, it's possible for developers to write closed-source GTK+ apps for free, and still make money without offering any support, isn't it? That seems like quite a proposition.

Perhaps Trolltech should follow your advice about licensing support and giving the product away for free...?

Edited 2007-08-13 04:09

Reply Parent Score: 3