Report: KDE at Latin America Free Software Install Festival

Last Saturday saw the first Latin America Free Software Install Fest held simultaneously in 74 cities and 12 countries. KDE was present at the Santiago location for installation assistance and a talk by Maurucio Bahamonde on KDE 3.4. We offered Kubuntu Live CDs to try out the desktop and the team offered help to install.

The event took place in the artistic "El sindicato" Culture Centre, which organiser CDSL had got use of. Visitor numbers were higher than expected.

amaroK and KDevelop were the programs that caused most of the "woo!" sounds, and the whole desktop was very highly rated by the people who tested it on our demo machine.

KDE was represented by KDE Chile members Matias Fernandez (Developer of KoolDock, Author of KGo! and KGoogleApplet), Mauricio Bahamonde (Author of Kopete text to speech plugin), Matias Valdenegro, Duncan Mac-Vicar (Kopete developer and official KDE representative in Chile) and Sebastian Sariego.

Enjoy the pictures of the event:

Dot Categories: 

Comments

by Amadeo (not verified)

>"Not everyone, special goverment, likes to write GPL applications"
Proof that governments do not like to write KDE apps? Do you have any?

>"GNOME is more popular in Brazil than KDE"
Proof? Statistics? A screenshot of one deployment does not count. BTW, I am Brazilian, and I don't think GNOME is more popular. Kurumin, for instance, is a widely used debian based distribution that is based on KDE. On the bookshops, there are several magazines with linux CD's, most of them with KDE.

>"KDE simple, has no chance in Latin America."
You are a troll (who does not respecty facts or logic), and you have no idea what you are talking about. Now come back with some facts, or better, don't come back at all.

by ASD... (not verified)

>>>Proof that governments do not like to write KDE apps? Do you have any?

My best friend works for goverment, they DO NOT LIKE gpl code to much.

>>Proof? Statistics? A screenshot of one deployment does not count. BTW, I am >>Brazilian, and I don't think GNOME is more popular.

That's weird, if you live in Brazil how come you don't know that?

>>>You are a troll (who does not respecty facts or logic), and you have no idea >>>what you are talking about. Now come back with some facts, or better, don't >>>come back at all.

No im not a troll, Im sure my vision is more open than yours, my concern is the $1,500 licesne for comercial applications, Im a developer in Latin America and I make a living of it, Im sure my point of view count as much as any concerned programer who doesn't have the money to play $1,500 per developer to acompany in Norway.

>>>Proof that governments do not like to write KDE apps? Do you have any?

>> My best friend works for goverment, they DO NOT LIKE gpl code to much

If they don't like GPL code, then they should not be using Linux, it is GPL all the way :o)

by Illissius (not verified)

Best post in the entire thread.

by ASD... (not verified)

>>If they don't like GPL code, then they should not be using Linux, it is GPL all >>the way :o)

Linux is a Kernel not a programing tool kit, wake up and release that most of the developers on Latin America won't mess with it.

I have no problems with GPL code, I have issues with Qt expensive licenses.

And you should know people who develope small aplications to sell them, dont release them as GPL, some one can make software in his free time and release it as GPL, but if it has to develope an application to sell it nd make a living of it, maybe he don't want it to be GPL and what options does he have? buy an expensive Qt license with money that maybe he doesn't count with.

by Morty (not verified)

>>Proof that governments do not like to write KDE apps? Do you have any?
>My best friend works for government, they DO NOT LIKE gpl code to much.
There are two answers to that.
-Your friends and their superiors are affected by some anti GPL FUD, clueless, incompetent or just to lazy to care. Perhaps a combination of those, it's fairly common among government employees all over the world.
-Or they are contractors hired by the government and don't want to kill their cash cow, by not creating a vendor lock in situation.

by Leo Spalteholz (not verified)

Since this thread got a bit confused and sidetracked, let me summarize it.

So, our friend ASD is saying that given 2 alternatives for cross platform development, developers with limited financial resources will always choose the free (as in beer) one.
ASD says, no matter how insignificant the QT license may be on a grand scale, GTK will be cheaper. This is of course true from a simplistic standpoint.
$1500 * developers + wages (for QT) > $0 * developers + wages (for GTK)

However, the counterarguments are numerous and convincing
1. QT is of higher quality (just compare documentation and the implementation on MS Windows, you cannot seriously argue this point).
2. QT will allow you to get your work done faster (and therefore cheaper) because the equivalent code with QT has fewer lines of code. (see http://phil.freehackers.org/kde/cmp-toolkits.html, there are others like it)
3. QT offers far more features than GTK does. QT is not just for GUI.
4. QT license gives you professional support, GTK does not.
5. You can use the free GPL version of QT even for commercial applications. Common practice amongst reputable custom development houses is to provide the source along with the application they develop. The GPL only requires you to distribute source to those who get the binary. Your customer can keep the software entirely to themselves, which would be in their best interest anyway.
6. Native QT support on Mac OS X is far far better than GTK. No contest.

As for .NET, it is not cross platform (at least System.Windows.Forms isn't), so it cannot be compared to QT and GTK.

So, do you realize why people don't accept your complaint now?

by Anonymous Son (not verified)

>>> The GPL only requires you to distribute source to those who get the binary.<<<

Not true.

It also requires you to distribute (upon request) the source to those whose source you used. That would be Trolltech.

Other than this, I agree with your summary.

by Leo Spalteholz (not verified)

Oh. I wasn't aware of that. Can you point me to the section of the GPL specifying that term? I couldn't find it (although I admit I didn't search exhaustively).

I was basing my statement mainly on this GPL FAQ entry:

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

He is just confused and mixing in a clause from the QPL.

Actually this is the clause in the QPL making the GPL fanatic cry out and declare the QPL not compatible with the GPL.

by Anonymous Son (not verified)

Nice to see you present yourself so un-confused and convincingly clear then.

by kmail lover (not verified)

>>> Can you point me to the section of the GPL...? <<<

Sorry, no. I am too lazy/tired right now. I hope you understand.... ;-)

Look for the spot where it says that you as the author of original code can aske anyone who uses this code under the GPL, and releases this modified code somehow to an outside entity must make the modifications available to you.

You are right in that not *anybody* can ask for the source, just the ones who received binaries under the GPL. But also the original authors can claim this.

Only fair enough, isn't it?

by Anonymous Son (not verified)

Consider this:
-- You are the author of a piece of software. It is all your code.
-- You release it to the public. As source code.
-- A company takes the source. Improves it slightly.
-- Company sells binaries of it.
-- Company complies to the GPL by also giving source code to its customers (should they want this).
-- Company makes lots of money. Really lots. From what is mostly *your* work.
-- Making money this way is OK. Nothing wrong with this: Compliant with GPL.
-- Now *you* ask company to give you the source/their modifications.
-- Company declines. They say "No, sorry, dude! Buy our binaries, and
you'll also get the source."

Wouldn't that be a flaw in the GPL? Can you imagine such a flaw in this wonderful license? Doesn't the GPL demand to "give back" the source
modifications once they are distributed to "the public"? Can you imagine
that the GPL would so much neglect you, the original author?

It is left as an excercise to the reader to find the paragraphs in the
GPL wording which do in fact support what I popularize here. Then paste
them to illuminate everone else.

> Wouldn't that be a flaw in the GPL? Can you imagine such a flaw in this wonderful license?
> Doesn't the GPL demand to "give back" the source
> modifications once they are distributed to "the public"? Can you imagine
> that the GPL would so much neglect you, the original author?

I don't see a problem with that. If that company makes that much money (and you didn't) it is very probable that *their* work made the difference. They get to choose who to distribute their important contribution to (at first!), but of course under the GPL.

No one can keep the *customer* from redistributing the code, though. So the requirements of the GPL as I understood it are satisfied.

> It is left as an excercise to the reader to find the paragraphs in the
> GPL wording which do in fact support what I popularize here. Then paste
> them to illuminate everone else.

IMHO it's up to you to do that. After all it's you who made that claim. Leo Spalteholz already quoted a section from the GPL FAQ that suggests that it is not true (indirectly, by mentioning only the *user* (the one the modified software is distributed to), not the *original author*). I haven't found anything that supports your claim in the GPL.

Maybe you're right, but up to now all we have as "proof" is your posting on the dot. I'm afraid you'll have to back that up if people are to believe you (and not by just stating things like "But wouldn't it be unfair to the original author if ...").

by Duncan Mac-Vicar P. (not verified)

Don't confuse modifying sources with mixing with a library. What you say is true only if you modify Qt itself.

by Anonymous Son (not verified)

So a company linking their code against my GPL code wouldnt allow my to claim their source from them?

Strange reasoning you are proposing here....

If a company makes changes to a program and uses it only internally then you are not entitled to request the sources. The GPL FAQ explicitely states this (see the section quoted by Leo above). So the thought of modification without giving out the source to the original author is not as strange as you suggest.

I know the GPL sees distribution and internal use of modified versions as fundamentally different things so this is no proof. But it's a related situation: A company uses your code in a modified form and you're not entitled to claim the source from them.

But where does the GPL talk about special rights of the original author anyway? The spots I could find talk only about the *user* of the modified version. That is the person the code is distributed to.

by mountebank (not verified)

>>> the thought of modification without giving out the <<<
>>> source to the original author is not as strange as <<<
>>> you suggest. <<<

Right. If they don't distribute outside their organization, yes.
If they do, no.

If you go back a few postings, towards the start of the thread, it says:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
...anyone who uses this code under the GPL, and releases
this modified code somehow to an outside entity....
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I know very well that the thread was about releasing code to an external entity: To the customer a.k.a. user (*he* is the one who has a right to receive the source code including all the modifications, no doubt about that, that's at the core of the GPL).

I just wanted to see a proof (e.g. a quote from the GPL or the GPL FAQ) that says that the original author of the software has any claim to the source code of the modifications if neither the author or the modifications nor the customer who got the modified source are willing to give it to him. Because that's what "Anonymous Son" had claimed!

See also:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy
It doesn't talk about any special rights of the original author, and not about the "general public", but only about the program's users, i.e. the customer you distributed the modified software to.

The intent of my post you replied to was to demonstrate that the handwaving "proof" by Anonymous Son just doesn't cut it. He tried to make the thought of modifying the source without giving out the changes sound ridiculous. It isn't, and the GPL FAQ even mentions an example for that (although this case is about internal use).

by ASD... (not verified)

The discution is interesting but I have to go, sorry if I wont be able to reply future Threats.

by ac (not verified)

Woohoo!!
The troll has been beaten :)

by dc (not verified)

KDE's community is simply no match for GNOME community.

GNOME community has been overrode by companies who have chased away all the GNOME users by making bone-headed decisions like using the wrong button order on Unix and spatial file browsing. It is sad but true. Now Miguel is turning GNOME into a .NET clone and there will be a big fight between Novell and Sun over .NET and Java. The GNOME community will fall apart even more.

All that will be left is one brazillian GNOME user called ASD... and he will be very sad and lonely. ;-)

by Morty (not verified)

From reading his comments/trolling he looks to me as already being sad and lonely. Friendless and lonely, reduced to troll KDE news sites to get any attention, rather sad if you ask me.

by Amadeo (not verified)

I don't think ASD is Brazilian. If he was, he would know about Conectiva, Kurumin and brazilian KDE (or kernel, since he said latin america does not care for the kernel) developers, like Marcelo, Helio, Arnaldo, Thiago, Henrique, etc...

Just a troll, move on...

Does a Qt license entitle 1 developer to using Qt only for the version available at the time of purchase, or is it for all Qt versions, future and current as well as support from Trolltech forever?

by Duncan Mac-Vicar P. (not verified)

Future versions get discounts IIRC. Future support should be consideered in costs. But as .NET it is the same situation, and GTK has no support. No need to compare here, except for the fact that TT support is very well rated.