IMO we've got some nitpicking there on FSF's side. Sure, limiting the user's right to copy the software could be considered a breach of GPL. But let's see it as a whole: If the software is free to obtain and use (i.e. not to buy; not sure about that Go! thingy, think I've never used it at all) there's no real reason to copy it from one device to the other and instead just grab another copy from the app store.
I think this isn't the real issue with Apple's policies/terms of use etc. the real problems are their other restrictions. Assume you write a game for the iPhone and apple rejects it. In that case (I think; been some time since I read an article about that) they want to force you to not release it on any other platform instead as well. That's like some vendor denying you to sell your products anywhere else just cause he didn't want to sell it either (but you asked him to).

As long as users are able to obtain a copy of the sources of the opensource program gpl is respected
Here it seems that gnu go was pulled from the store because the fsf inquired at apple and the default response to any copyright inquire is to pull the app... The fsf seems to be just pissed about that

I might be wrong... Like any other human
Bye
Koda

Wouldn't it be annoying if you submitted hedgewars to the app store after all this work and they rejected it because Steve Jobs hates gpl and general freedom. The work would still be there for android maemo etc I suppose.

" But the Usage Rules are imposed on you no matter how the software is licensed. The Terms themselves make this explicit this in section 9(c), which says:

The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. (Emphasis added.)

That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that."

It's the fact that the app store's terms of service license tacks on restrictions against freedom even though the software is under the GNU-GPL. Those who wrote the Free Software license knew this might be a way companies would try to steel users' freedoms. That's why they added the fallowing to the GNU-GPL to make the GNU-GPL incompatible to such a scheme.

"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

(Emphasis added.)"

Thus, Apple had two choices. 1: Change their terms of service license to not tact on restrictions to Free Software Freedoms. Or, 2: Take down the Free Software before they are sued for breaching the license of the GNU-GPL.

Unless Apple changes their terms of service license, I don't see how Hedgewars can be put on the iPhone/iPad through the app store. Is there any other way of installing software onto an iPhone/iPad that is not through the app store? (I do not know as I do not use Apple stuff because they have a long and sad history of being against Freedom in many ways.)

Quotes from:
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

Well as you seem to understand apple are very restrictive and so the app store is the only 'legal' way to do so without jailbreaking (hacking) the ipod touch/ipad. Which I understand lots of people do. Wouldn' there be a way of making the iphone/ipad version a different version licensed under something different even if the same stuff was availible online for free.

Look at this:

http://www.tuxradar.com/brainparty

I know about because it was written by the editor of the linux format magazine and I read that magazine. It's licensed under GPLv3 AND available on the app store. I bought it and downloaded the source to my computer. Hedgewars is under GPLv2 but I don't know the specific differences bettween the two.

Perhaps, I am not sure. But that would make the iPad/iPhone version Non-Free Proprietary Software and my ethics would not permit me to use such software that does not respect Freedom. I would boycott the Non-Free version of Hedgewars just as I would boycott other software that does not respect me. Sadly, Nexuiz is trying to do something similar.

It seems a new trend that Free Software video game makers are using Freedom and the practical benefits that the Free Software license gives them to build the game and a fan base. Then they make, "deals with the devil," by bending to the will of people like Apple and the video game console manufacturers by making non-free versions. Alleging that the computer versions will stay Free and that development will supposedly not fall behind as they start developing non-free versions.

First, I would rather Apple and the video game console world change their tune and work friendly with Free Software.

If that does not happen, I would rather there be no iPad/iPhone/video games console versions at all if they are going to not respect my freedom. As Richard Stallman has said clearly, developing a Non-Free program is an attack to your community/society; not a contribution. And it's better that a program not be developed and released at all if it's going to be released as non-free. At least then you are not attacking your community.

I really do want to know if making non-free spin off versions of a game to put it on iPad/iPod/video game concoles is a breech of license. I guess it depends on how its done.

GPL3, I think and I could be wrong here, is rather clear that you have to be able to re-compile modified versions of the program and run them on the device they are aimed at. That is pretty much, if I am understanding it right, what the battle of Tivoization was about.

"Tivoization is the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license (like the GPL), but uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware."

I guess here is it using license restrictions instead of hardware, but it's still restricting you the same.

If I can't install the iPad version of Hedgewars myself without going through Apples store, then how can I compile any modified version of the program to run on the iPad? It completely destroys the entire point of Freedom #1, the freedom to get the source code and made modified versions of the software. Hence, it's not Free Software and should be seen as a violation of the license and should be sued as breech of license.

Unfortunately, and I could be wrong, I do not think such specific provisions were built into the license in depth until version 3. This is one of the specific reasons I would like Hedgewars to be licensed under GPL V3 instead of V2, so it is protected against Tivoization.

It keeps frustrating me when some Free Software game designers try to use the fan base they have created with their Free Software game as a tool of popularity to launch Proprietary versions of the game on other systems. It's similar to the story with the hen that spends all day backing the bread and no one wants help until after its made then everyone wants to have a piece. Freedom seems all fun and good until the game is along enough to be profitable as non-free; then sometimes the sad non-free spin offs come.

Some say the console world is too closed minded to ever change and that we should just play by their rules. That's called not asserting market pressure, not understanding politics, not having ethics, and not understanding history. If it were not for people fighting for ethics against what appeared to be all odds and practicality, Free Software GNU/Linux systems would not exist today at all. We can not just give in to their demands because they say so. We are Freedom, we are the future, we are the way things should be done, and they need to change to us.

I'd rather Apple respect freedom. But, to be honest, I'd rather there be no iPad/iPhone version at all if it's going to be a non-free spin off. I hope the Hedgewars team doesn't take that route. As it appears Nexuiz already has and myself and a lot of people have lost a lot of respect for them. It really is forgetting where you came from and turning your back on your community. Or, in a word, selling out. And I hope Hedgewars does not sell out.

"TiVo's software incorporates the Linux kernel and GNU software, both of which are licensed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv2). GPLv2 requires distributors to make the corresponding source code available to each person who receives the software. The goal of this requirement is to allow users of GPL'd software to modify the software to better suit their purposes.[2]

However, Stallman believes TiVo circumvented this goal by making their products run programs only if the program's digital signature matches those authorized by the manufacturer of the TiVo.[3] So while TiVo has complied with the GPL v2 requirement to release the source code for others to modify, any modified software will not run on TiVo's hardware."

Aside from it being a license issue instead of a hardware one, how is what Apple is doing any different than what TiVo did? Both are getting in the way of all users exercising their freedoms the license guarantees the Free Software program to have and give to all users.

One could argue that the Hedgewars team has the freedom to make new versions. But the point of Free Software is so that everyone can make their new versions directly; not just the developers. So, that argument still goes against freedom.

OK I see your point of view but, lets face it apple and microsoft arne not goin to go open themselves.I do believe freedom and open software is better but at the moment you have to accept that we are the minority or 'die fighting'. On my system I must admit that I run proprietary nvidia drivers because I use my computer for playing games such as hedgewars. When there is a viable free alternative (I'm looking at you nouveau) I will gladly switch, but not if that free alternative doesn't work. When it comes to the point that there are free ipad/iphones I will switch to them. Do you already run a completly free computer? I must also admit I own an ipod touch but have no plans to get an ipad. I use it regularly, it works. By supplying hedgewars by the app store they are just supplying demand, they haven't suddenly turned 'evil'. The devs need money and will continue developing the desktop version FOR FREE. I for one don't actually want to compile hedgewars on anipod, I don't think many people would. I love the freedom it gives me on my desktop, and I use it. This will still stay free. Would you want a version on android, maemo, meego or moblin? Are they free as in speech, or free as in beer? I don't own a device running any but I think they all have proprietary parts to them. I think you need to speek with one of the devs about this and not me but I don't think that they are 'evil' people now that they plan to release a ipad/ipod touch version and I even donated to them for this mobile cause.

First off, I want to make it clear that no pricing scheme has been announced regarding the ipad/iphone versions of Hedgewars what so ever, there has been talk in favour of putting the game on the appstore for free.

That said, I'm going to respond to this post with the idea in mind that Hedgewars WOULDN'T be free.

I don't tend to respond to posts full of misguided entitlement but yours gos so far that you've become offensive, both to me and the entire dev team.

So let's see...

Could you explain how releasing an app on a closed system, for those who are requesting it on said closed system, that has absolutely no affect on the current version of Hedgewars is an act of disrespect towards you, or the community?

You seem to be saying "I got one version for free, it's insulting that I don't get the other!"

You mention the benefits of a free software license to the developers, but completely fail to mention the benefits to the players. You completely overlook the fact that a group of people have spent their time developing both a game and a community for absolutely nothing in return. Whilst their ARE benefits to developers when working with a free license, none of these are monetary by definition.

It is YOU who is getting a free game.
It is YOU who reaps the benefits in a financial sense, by gaining software cost free.

And frankly I am insulted with your stance. You mention the development of the non free version as if you are ENTITLED to updates. Guess what, you're not. We update as and when we feel like updating. If we don't want to, we won't. If we want to work on one version and not another, we will.

I don't have to "allege" anything to you in the first place. When you start paying me for my work, I will become accountable. Until then, you take what you get.

As for deals with the devil and bending to apples will. Apple has a platform, they developed it, they control it, and that's fine. We decided we'd like to use their platform and players have requested we support it, so we've decided to. It's as simple as that. And again, it's UP TO US.

Again, this is insulting.
We have spent a great deal of time and hard work providing this community with something for nothing. The suggestion that we are now "attacking" the community is so far off base it's disgusting.

Your Hen analogy is retarded and has no relevance to our situation. Again, your suggestion that we "use" the fan base as a "tool" is an insult. If it were the PC version we were suddenly charging for, perhaps you'd have a point. But even then, what makes you think you shouldn't be paying anything for the work we put in?

Aside from that, the ipad market is NOT our community. There is little crossover, and the parts of our community that OWN an ipad have requested we produce an ipad version.

You are spoilt, you are entitled, you are an ignorant freeloader, and you need to change your outlook.

The sourcecode will be available, and it will allow developers to make their own ipad version.

In summary, we haven't decided on a priceing scheme for ipad hedgewars yet.
And you're an ignorant, entitled, freeloading, self-rightous asshat

very few girls over there

OK I will just say I would be happy to pay for an iphone version of the game but I am against changing the actual pc version from being completly free and open as I support opensource but as I understand it this will hopefully not happen. By the way haven't you infringed some nintendo/capcom copyright with some hats? Apple might not like that but I don't know. I might leave this argument now because I definatly DON'T want to offend or anger the devs in any way.

You wont offend or anger me.
I just found William Wallace over there (Freeeeedommm!!!!) rediculously rude.

I think the plan is to take out any hats that might prove plobematic in the ipad/iphone versions.

The desktop version will always be free.
The ipad/iphone version might be free, supported by the ability to buy premium content (hats,graves, etc), undecided yet.

I would defiantly be happy with that setup if that is how it turns out. Would the desktop and mobile take equal priority or would you be likely to concentrate on one more than the other?

The iPad/iPhone version is not independant of the desktop version.
That is to say, we make updates to the game as a whole, and at release time builds are made for windows, linux and osx. The iphone/ipad is just an addition to this list of platforms that recieve a build.

They aren't developed independantly.

So in that regard, the desktop version HAS to come first. Infact, the hope is (though we're not sure how realistic it is at this point) that we can make the ipad compatible with the desktop versions for netplay.

delete please

OK now I see. Thank you.

Again, my goal was not to offend, although it appears that I have. So, I might as well respond anyway.

One thing that frustrated me about your response was the manner in which you used the fact that the game doesn't cost any money to get as a way to try to shield yourself from criticism. Especially when I wasn't even criticizing price. (My criticism of price was mostly aimed at Nexuiz as I was not sure if the iPad version of Hedgewars would cost any money and I mostly assumed it was zero price. Again, though, that really wasn't the point of my criticism. Perhaps I should have made that criticism clearer.) It's really a form of a guilt trip. Like you trying to say that sense I don't have to pay for it, how dare I criticize it. I would hope that a game designer should welcome criticism, not have abhorrence toward it.

About half of my post was more a friendly heads up that if you try to put the game up on the iPad under the current license that Apple will take it down. I was trying to do you a friendly favor, not incite your anger. I e-mailed off to GNU and asked them and they said that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with Apple's Terms of Use, as I pointed out. Though, they did mention that their response to me was not legal advice. So it seems, and you can check for yourself, that you're going to have to license under a different license for the iPad version if you want to make one. If it is put up under its current license, Apple will probably take it down to avoid complications. (Most likely not even put it up at all.) Then again, it wasn't legal advice, so I could be wrong about this entirely. But I don't think I am.

The reason this irritates me, and especially Nexuiz, is that it feels disingenuous and self-defeatist.

"Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL."

So the answer to hardship is to just give up and let these closed platforms get the game the non-free way they wanted it? What about all the people who worked on the game because it was Free Software? Can they take their contributions to the game back out now because they don't want it sold as non-free for a profit? If not, isn't the Nexuiz team using these peoples' hard work for profit? Isn't that called theft? I guess not, as long as the theft is legal.

I think, we should be boycotting closed platforms and aim instead at Pandora and other such platforms. I think I read somewhere that you might be making a Pandora version, that is good. But we shouldn't be making non-free versions for closed platforms. They can have free versions on the closed platform, if they respect the users' freedom. But, in the case of Apple and the iPad, they don't. And it seems as much with the PS3 and 360. Or, perhaps Nexuiz didn't even bother to try to make it work the freedom respecting way? I'm not sure. Boycotts are a way of exerting market pressure. Of making a point. Tremulous was going to go on the 360 (I'm assuming the same way Nexuiz did) but decided not to once a large amount of their fans made it clear that they did not want to go down that awful path. That is what I am trying to do here.

Free Software Video Games are a rather fledgling field. And it's only going to get worse, I think, if we decide to re-license our games as proprietary every time we develop one good enough that the outside world cares about having it. The companies win, and the users loose. Wow, that's not freedom at all.

My goal here is to be an advocate for freedom. I am not going to apologize if advocating for freedom offends you or your team. That's your problem(s), not mine. The person who responded to me from GNU said that, if done ethically, what Nexuiz is doing might benefit Free Software development. I have sent a reply asking how. Basically, I think the person was saying that if the money being brought in from the non-free version is used to fund the free version that this could help develop the free version. This still seems off to me, though I suppose it makes the best of a bad situation.

The point of the four freedoms is so that all users' have them. Under this situation, they really don't. Only the computer users' do. Not the iPad, iPhone, PS3, or 360 users. I'm pretty sure all users' won't be able to re-compile their modified source code of iPad Hedgewars and run it even if it stays GPL on that platform which I don't think it can, they way things currently are. There goes the whole point of Freedom #1, freedom to make modified versions for yourself. Freedom #3 is the freedom to distribute your modified versions. Freedom #2 is the freedom to make copies. Freedom #3 is out for the same reason as Freedom #1. And I think the only way to get software on an iPad is the Apple Store. So, unless I'm wrong, there goes freedom #2. The freedoms are for all users', not just the Hedgewars development team and not just for the Apple Store.

It completely destroys the entire point of the license, far as I can see, and thus I think it should be boycotted by anyone who respects freedom. While I love playing Hedgewars, on my computer, I don't see how anyone could see the iPad version as good for Freedom at all. (Aside from raising money for the free version. But, to me, that still seems like it's not a freedom respecting way of raising such funds.) Have you read about the ethics of Free Software? Do you understand the reasons behind the license you chose to put your game under? I think a lot of people pick this license because it's popular and they don't understand what it's about or why it was made. Linux is a huge example of this. Torvalds picked GNU GPL2 for the Linux Kernel, (which many people unfortunately and incorrectly name the GNU system after) because he wanted to easily get a lot of people working on his kernel and get it out on many systems. His inclusion of, and then him trying to defend his inclusion of, non-free binary blobs in his kernel, as well as his support for Tivoization that robs freedom from the public much the same way as Apple is doing with the iPad, (Though apple is using law to do it instead of technology, it is still taking freedom away.) clearly shows that Torvalds does not respect digital freedom. Or, at least, he doesn't respect it completely. The freedoms are for everyone, not just some. Those who don't support that don't respect the freedoms.

I asked how Nexuiz could be doing this. I also wondered if the Linux kernel was doing their betrayal of freedom the same way. It seems from a copyright license point of view; the Linux development team has, more or less, as the license holder, decided to violate the license and not sue themselves for their violation. Thus, sadly, it appears you can violate your own license as much as you want if you're the holder of it. I could be wrong, but that seems like how it's playing out.

And, with Nexuiz, it appears you can license a game under more than one license. As I was hoping that if this was not legal, that this could be a way of halting this betrayal.

The writers of the GNU GPL license did not do anything wrong or forget to do something. It's just that copyright licenses and copyright law can only do so much currently and currently work this way. The writers did the best they could with how things currently work. I suppose, as it seems anyway, if people want to violate the license they can if they are the rights holder. Or, they can simply put different licenses on the same program, making it non-free on some platforms. This is sadly a huge gap that I am rather sad to find. As I fear more programs, especially video games, might go down this awful path if their developers care more about reaching more platforms for that sake alone than reaching them with freedom. And if my seeing this as you and your team selling out offends you, then so be eat. It's offensive to me when people sell out freedom.

Not saying that you will sell out freedom; I hope you don't. Also, charging a price for Free Software is not selling out Freedom. There is a very good article on that.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

My hope is that you don't sell out the freedom of Free Software.

[I asked to delete my previous thread post because I had replied, but wanted to gather my thoughts before replying.]

Just some small notes - to be honest I think you're really making too much fuss about this.

Noone is restricting you in any way to grab the source, modify it and then submit it to Apple for approval and/or upload it yourself (i.e. jailbreak). Its not like the iPhone version's source code is closed or non-GPL etc.

As you mentioned the Xbox360 and the PS3 would act similar: Yes, those are closed systems but they even keep you from releasing your source code or allowing others to compile it. (As a side note: This isn't 100% true for the Xbox360. You're free to develop a game using C# and the XNA framework and then release it under GPL or any other license. Everyone is able to compile that code using free tools and upload it without additional requirements. Only using the C++ dev package is restricted to licensed partners.)

Regarding "violating your own license": That's something that's completely impossible. Even if you release your code as GPL you're free to release it under a second (or third, ...) license as well. I know that such a change would require the agreement of all contributors but I wouldn't expect this to be a problem either. The alternative license could be the GPL as well with one additional note that you as the licensee accept that you might be restricted using your changed code due to third party restrictions such as those enforced by Apple. Why would you consider such an option as a betrayal? I'd agree if there'd be different source code or additions (popular example: the shareware/Win32 version of X-Chat - it's licensed under GPL (only) and contains propritary code not in the source package) but that isn't true at all (at least not for Hedgewars).

But again I'm rather sure it would be just nitpicking around a small issue/note that might affect only a very small userbase (after all you'll need programming skills as well as a Mac to develop/compile etc.). Should we instead avoid releasing an official binary for iPhone and instead release the source code only or stop developing for that platform as a whole? You're talking about freedom but at the same time you try to force others to boycott platforms, essentially restricting their freedom. Sure, I'm not happy with Apple's way to run the app store etc. and I'd really like to help developing for the iPhone/Mac version from my Windows desktop - but I can't due to Apple's restrictions. Should I boycot all Apple platforms due to me not being able to cross compile/test run without buying their expensive hardware? After all they're keeping me from using my freedom.

Overall I think the whole discussion about GPL and "restricted freedom" is completely weird and unnecessary anyway. If you'd like to have software that ensures 100% freedom to you it would have to be released to the public domain - not GPL'ed. The GPL grants you lots of rights but you're far from the freedom you seem to expect (judging your posts).

Also why are you against relicensing code under different licenses? There are lots of commercial libraries out there using that licensing model. There's a free GPL or similar license as well as a commercial one. To stay related to Hedgewars, Qt - the framework Hedgewars uses for its frontend - is licensed that way. According to your posts you'd rather see them not releasing a free-to-use license at all as they try to make money as well. How is that improving or promoting free software?

It appears that my point is still being missed.

My point:

It does not seem right to me to use non-free software to promote the financing and development of free software. At least if you can help it.

Reasons:

First, it's hypocritical. It's basically saying that non-free is bad but it's somewhat half okay if the money being gained from it is being used to fund the Free version. It's like saying cigarettes are bad unless the money being made from selling them is being donated to a lung cancer research center. While it's always nice to get more money for researching how to cure bad things, considering the research is not a fraud, but if the money is coming from the evil thing causing the illness; doesn't it taint the money?

Second, the non-free version is not free. (The iPad version will likely have to be.)

Third, it creates almost a project fork. I don't think it does with Hedgewars. It looks like the game will be the same, more or less, on the computer and on the iPad. But it obviously has created a fork with Nexuiz. The engine looks the same, and it looks like the Free Software version on the computer might get some kick backs from the non-free version; but the content such as the skins and maps that are being created for the non-free looks as if they will be non-free and not available to us. So, which version will Nexuiz favor? The non-free version their getting paid to develop, or the Free Version that they get money on through donation? So, which version is likely to be left dead and not developed and which version is going to likely take precedence? Probably whichever one they make more money on, if they do not value Freedom. Will that money go to developing the Free version of Nexuiz, or a non-free sequel to the non-free console version? You get the point.

What I Am Not Against:

I am not against selling Free Software for money. Free Software is about Freedom, not price. Thus, if selling Free Software is used as a way of generating money; it's not wrong. In fact, you can do that for profit and not even use the money to develop the Free Version. If you were able to release Hedgewars on iPad and charged for it under its current license; you could charge whatever you want and it would be fine. You can use the money for development or keep it as profit. If it were still under a Free Software license, we would still have the freedoms the license guarantees. Thus, I have no problem with this.

Many people probably do not realize that you do not need permission to sell Free Software for profit, or to make a release their own versions of for profit. It is different for some video games, if the content is under a different license. But if the content, graphics and sounds, are under the same; they can do that too. Most people really don't do this, because they want to contribute and give back to the original program. So, whatever additions they make they usually give back to the original project team to integrate into their version. But I could (providing the content is under the same license as the engine) make my own spin off version of Hedgewars and sell the game for profit myself without getting permission from anyone. If the content is under a different license, I could strip it out and develop my own content. That's basically what Freedoom is. The Doom engine source code is Free Software. That's why there are so many Doom engine out there. But the iwad is still under their copyright. So Freedoom is a project to create a Free Software iwad with new content put into it. It's still a work in progress, but it's fun to play. I could sell Freedoom and a Free Software Doom engine for a profit.

If a program or library is licensed under more than one license, I am not for boycotting the Free Software version. I'm not for boycotting Free Software.

I understand that many would like an iPad version. But it should be done the right way. Which is kept under a Free Software license. And I don't think Apple will allow you too because of the legal problems they are facing because the license of the GNU GPL is inherently incompatible with their Terms of Service and they don't want a lawsuit.

Also, I do boycott Apple's products as Apple has had a long track record of denying users their freedoms and trying to control them. I never use Apple Software, and I would not run any apple hardware unless I could strip the OS off and put a fully Free Software GNU/Linux OS on instead. I like Trisquel the best, as it stays up to date with the Ubuntu releases. Some Apple hardware can do this, I think it depends on its hardware architecture. I don't think I've ever had success with a Power PC, but an Intel Apple can do it.

I basically wait until someone else besides Apple designs hardware that can do the same thing as they usually are not as restrictive as Apple so I, if I want it, will buy that. So, for example, I don't use iPods. If I wanted a portable MP3 player, I'd buy one that is not made by Apple. So, if the iPad is popular enough; someone else will likely make their own and it will likely not be restrictive like Apple. Then, I might get something like that.

So, again, my complaint is very specific. I feel it is hypocritical to release Hedgewars (any Free Software) under non-free licenses. Apple may not allow you to release Hedgewars on the iPad with its Free Software License to avoid legal complications. So, is the Hedgewars team going to tell Apple that if they can't keep Hedgewars under a Free Software License through the app store that they will just not release an iPad version through the app store? Or, will the Hedgewars team just re-license Hedgewars under a non-free license for the Apple App store version and ignore the ethical issue? That's my very specif complaint, as that seems like selling out to me. Not the whole project selling out, just the app store version. Why is this complain offensive to the Hedgewars Team? I think it is a specific question of ethics that needs to be addressed. What is addressing an ethical question offensive?

I am not against selling Hedgewars, I'm against releasing it under a non-free license. Which, I think Apple will require you to do. And selling the non-free version just adds insults to injury. If Apple allows you to keep it under the GNU GPL, then there is a legal conflict between the GNU GPL and the Apple Terms of Use. So, Apple will against be challenged to change its terms of service so as not to violate the GNU GPL which it does. That is why the took down GNU GO, because they had to choose between changing their Terms of Service or facing a possible lawsuit for breech of license.

OK f13ticket just leave it now. I get what your saying but I also think nemo and Tiyuri got what you are saying. You just lost the argument. So if you want to do it your way, make hedgewars 2 and base it on the same engine, make it completly free and do it to your own morals but this is their project so just accept that.

Well, frankly, once it's licensed this way it's really 'everybody's' project, so to speak. While they are the ones making it, the code now belongs to everyone. That's the point of a copyleft license, after all. It's similar to what creative commons does for art. Someone else drew it, but now it belongs to everyone. If the artists didn't want it to belong to everyone, they wouldn't have licensed it this way. In a way, sense I like the game, I am only simply concerned with where it might be going in the future. Sense it belongs to everyone, and sense I'm a part of everyone, it belongs to me too. Neat eh? It's community property, basically. So they can decide to do whatever they want with it. But if I and others cared to, we could do a spin off project.

In a way, that's what Linux Libre is. Sense Linux violates the point of the license and puts in non-free binary blobs; the Linux Libre project takes each new Linux kernel release and de-blobs it. You know, the blobs that shouldn't be there in the first place. Sense Linux and its project team do not respect freedom, some other team has to do extra work on their work to remove stuff they shouldn't be putting in there in the first place. Non-free Software should not be in a program that is licensed as Free Software. I don't even know how that's legal; it's probably not. I think Linux technically violates its own license to put in the blobs. But, as the license holder, they have deiced not to sue themselves. Hence, someone else has to modify the kernel to make it actually come back into compliance with the ideas of the license in the first place. I wonder why the FSF simply does not sue people for stuff like this; but copyright licenses only go so far. So licensing under more than one license is legal. And, apparently, so is violating your own license if you're the license holder. But, as a copyleft license, the freedoms are distributed to each person who gets the software. So, that is why Linux Libre can exist. Once they download the Linux Source, they can make as many spin off projects they want.

I am not very interested in making a spin off project of Hedgewars currently. As I do not have that deep a level of programing knowledge yet and frankly it's a great game already. I was just pointing out more interesting things about the license as I think some people might license their software under the license and some of them may not really study it to know why it exists or what it allows everyone to do. It was written to guarantee the four freedoms to everyone who ever gets the software. (To all the users, not just the people who started the project or the people distributing it.) The freedom for all the users to run the software how the users want. The freedom for all the users to modify the software how the users want. The Freedom for all the users to distribute copies of the software how the users want. The freedom for all the users to distribute modified versions of the software how the users want.

The App store Terms of Service infringes against the license, so no GNU GPL can legally be on the app store, if I am correct in my understanding. As such, they will likely take it down like they did GNU GO if they even let it up in the first place. So, unless Apple changes its Terms of Service to not infringe on the license, then Hedgewars can only get on the App store with a non-free license on the app store version. Thus, destroying it would destroy the freedom and become the antitheses of the entire point of the GNU GPL. (For the app store version.) At least as far as I can see.

Again, I honestly do not even know why the Hedgewar's team is offended. I'm just pointing out how the license works, to the best of my knowledge, and explaining how GNU Go got removed from the App store. If Apple even allows Hedgewars on under the GNU GPL I will be surprised. Apple will likely see that it's under the GNU GPL just like GNU Go is.

I also don't see how I possibly lost the argument, or why I should stop voicing my views. I don't even know why this is controversial. I am pointing out that community property, and as a fan of this property that I own (just as anyone who gets the software owns it) I care about the fact that its original creators might be being planning to sell out a version of it. (The app store version.)

My sense of entitlement (that seems to possibly be what has offended the Hedgewars team) is not ill-gotten, I simply understand the license. It's like a community park. It's not just yours because you built it. It belongs to you, me, and everyone. Why is knowing what I am legally entitled to seen as selfish or offensive? If the Hedgewars team wanted to make Hedgewars and own it for themselves only; then that's not respecting computer freedom for all the users and the Hedgewars team really chose a license that did not match their ethics. I, however, love freedom for all the users and love this license and the fact that the Hedgewars team those chose to put Hedgewars under it.

Is suggesting putting market pressure on a closed platform offensive? It's a basic act of protesting and civil disobedience. Look at the civil rights movement. Boycotts aren't offensive, they're peaceful and they work.

I guess the only other part that might have offended them is that I have described their actions as selling out. That's not a curse word. And what else would you call it? Is there a nicer phrase for selling out that is not as offensive and still describes giving up freedom for either profit or popularity? (In this case the popularity of reaching another platform.)

Again, if calling someone a sell out (after explaining in depth my reasons for doing so), suggesting a boycott, and understanding a copyleft license is offensive; then I am proud to be offensive. Again, I'm offended that the Hedgewars team offended by this.

Also, I went into more detail because much of Tiyuri's criticisms against me, which were not nearly as politely phrased as mine against him, seemed to focus on the price issue which was a side issue. (One I mostly aimed at Nexuiz as a way to add context to my overal argument.) Taking a side issue and making it into the main criticism against me is called making a straw-man argument. It's a basic tactic for dodging and avoiding dealing with or addressing a serious question or concern. Politicians do it a lot, sadly. He then insulted my points out of context as a tactic to try to bully me into standing down on my free speech, again another basic political aversion tactic.

All of this because I took the care to point out that I love Freedom and want a game that I love to continue having freedom on all the versions and on all the platforms it goes on; and that the App store will likely not allow this to happen after the GNU GO incident. I was trying to be friendly, and I basically go insulted and belittled. Which mostly seems to stem from him thinking that he owns community property and that he is offended that I am offended that he might be selling out a version of the community property to non-free big business. Hopefully I will get an apology from him for him being so rude to me.

You're always talking about non-free licenses. You somehow associate GPL with free and everything else with non-free. Think about it. Even GPL doesn't grant you all possible rights (and restricts your freedom requiring you to apply the same license) so I don't see any massive issue here. Also there are tons of free software NOT licensed under GPL but still considered "free".

Yes, you can't grab the iPhone app's source code, recompile it and upload it right away. But neither can the original author. He had to sign up for the dev kit, get his app approved, etc. - same as you or anyone else. As mentioned I don't like Apple's restrictions but overall you (and possible others as well) ask for rights not even the original author possesses.

Just to create a simple example in a different environment: Let's assume we've got a mobile phone that allows everyone to compile and then run programs. However this process requires you to first compile everything on your desktop PC and then upload everything using a data cable you have to buy first (not included with mobile phone nor PC). Does the developer of the app violate the GPL just because it requires additional things to be done by you (obtain the cable)? In the original case there's no cable but the app store. At least to me both cases are rather similar although one involves a third party (and not just some kind of hardware shop).

That's a great point, there are more Free Software licenses than only the GPL. I simply focused on that one sense that's what Hedgewars is under. For a list of Free Licenses, you can find them here.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

You're right, not every Free Software license makes all versions use the same license. Some do, some don't. Doing so is called copyleft, and the GPL does. That's what allows spin off projects to be easier, like Linux Libre. I like the copyleft. I don't see it as a restriction, but rather a guarantee that the freedom fallows the software and is there for all the users.

"He had to sign up for the dev kit, get his app approved, etc. - same as you or anyone else. As mentioned I don't like Apple's restrictions but overall you (and possible others as well) ask for rights not even the original author possesses."

True, but computing shouldn't work that way. Platforms should be open to everyone. And those who play by their rules are encouraging this type of computing. It's not so bad now, when I and others can just boycott Apple for doing this. But this is what console manufacturers do too. What happens if others like Dell, Gateway, or HP decide to fallow suit and there are no freedom respecting platforms left? (Perhaps unlikely, but it must be considered.) We must demonstrate with market pressure that this type of computing, computing with restrictions, is not acceptable and will not be embraced by those who love freedom.

"Just to create a simple example in a different environment: Let's assume we've got a mobile phone that allows everyone to compile and then run programs. However this process requires you to first compile everything on your desktop PC and then upload everything using a data cable you have to buy first (not included with mobile phone nor PC). Does the developer of the app violate the GPL just because it requires additional things to be done by you (obtain the cable)? In the original case there's no cable but the app store. At least to me both cases are rather similar although one involves a third party (and not just some kind of hardware shop)."

Your example, however, is a hardware example. I think, though could be wrong, that both Openmoko and Pandora have a development kit or model or something to that affect. If this is the hardware process for getting any software onto the device, and its necessary and not just made this way to gouge and or control people, then that's just how the device works. Not supplying the cable wouldn't matter or not. That's a software freedom question, not a hardware question. The two are completely different worlds. If I buy a disc with a Free Software OS on it, it's not a breech of license that they don't provide me with a CD-ROM Optical Drive. It's not the hardware that is locking people's freedom out of the iPad. It's their Terms of Use and maybe vendor-lock instituted through their software.

(I am guessing that they require you to buy the hardware to develop a version, if I am reading what you said right? In a way, if that's their legal policy [part of their Terms of Use?] that perhaps that's also a legal and hardware form of a vendor-lock. But having a developing kit/model for people to buy and use is not in itself vendor-lock or even bad.)

Apple is doing what is akin to vendor-lock. They are doing it through means of their Terms of Use, and I think they often try to do it through software itself. Vendor-lock, wither its done with lay, software, or hardware; is always an attack on the freedom of all the users. If hardware is needed, and can be obtained, then its not hardware vendor-lock. If hardware is not really needed, but they make it needed and far more expensive than it really needs to be or simply not available to the public; then it's vendor-lock. If it is not necessarily by the legal definition, it is by any particle definition. (The MPAA technically does not censor films by a legal definition of the word censor, but by all practical definitions they of the word censor, they censor films. Because their rulings decide if a movie goes into most theaters or not. So they are still controlling [censoring] what does and does not get into theaters.)

This has turned into a battle of semantics.

You're using semantics to suggest we would be acting unethically if we were to re-license Hedgewars in order to release it on the iPad.

You go as far as to say

"If not, isn't the Nexuiz team using these peoples' hard work for profit? Isn't that called theft? I guess not, as long as the theft is legal."

despite those contributors to Nexuiz knowing full well their work could be sold or re-licensed if they submit it to the project under it's current license. Then on the flip side, you support people taking GPLed work, doing no work of their own, and selling it for profit.

But here's the thing. In PRACTICE, we're not restricting anyone in any way.
The sources for all versions of Hedgewars ARE available to anyone.
The content for all versions of Hedgewars ARE available to anyone.

Now here's where things get offensive. When you complain that devs build pay versions of their apps, and then stop supporting the free versions. The reason this is offensive is because it seems as if you think yourself ENTITLED to support/updates for that free version. Despite the fact you have paid for it and contributed nothing towards it.

When I took issue with this before, you suggested that I was against criticism. This is not the case, we welcome criticisms on the game here and always have. We take them carefully into consideration and try to give people what they want. What I am taking issue with is your entitlement, the fact that you seem to think you have the RIGHT to receive updates. Considering you are paying nothing for the service we provide, as well as the software, you should be thankful for whatever you get.

If adhering to your idea of "freedom" simply restricts people from playing the game on their platform of choice, then it's a lousy idea of freedom.

I am no longer going to argue semantics.

We will make sure we act in a legal way, and outside of that, we will make sure that sources and content stay open in PRACTICE. I am not a lawyer and I don't have time for this kind of nonsense.

First, copyright law might be seen as a battle of semantics. I think it would be unethical/hypocritical to relicense Hedgewars under a non-free license for the purpose of adhering to Apple's restrictive Terms of Use to embrace their restrictive platform. It's not ilegal, as I learned and did not know before, but it does come off to me as unethical.

I did not know that copyright works in such a way that a program could be under more than one license at once. (Which if one is Free Software and one isn't, to me, would create a huge paradox. But, as I think I have learned, law can work this way. I still have difficulty understand how one program can, at the same time, play by two different and apposing sets of rules.) As such, if I ever were to donate money, programing, or content before now I would not have known that and it would have been (and is) a slap in the face to me. I suppose then that would be my own fault for not understanding how copyright law works. So I have no one to blame on that but myself.

You are correct, in practice you are not restricting anyone. In practice, Apple is. You are simply choosing to embrace Apple rather than boycott it. That is a personal choice that everyone is free to make as they want to. I find it hypocritical from a software politics point of view, but that's me.

I support selling Free Software, even without contributing, because the license supports it. Though, obviously, if I or anyone did sell a Free Software program it would be a sign of thanks to the programmers to donate a portion of the money made back to those making the program. Though, legally, no such thing is required.

My concern, and again this is aimed at Nexuiz and others and not really at you, is that Free Software gaming will largely evaporate if the practice of embracing non-free licenses is continued and amplified. It basically renders Free Software game development, for those who do not care about freedom, into a way to generate low cost beta testing. Those who do not care about freedom might put the game out there, invite people to donate content, programming, and money until the game reaches 1.0 (give or take) then turn around, re-license it as non-free, and then stop updating the Free Software version. Then these people might port the non-free version off to either the iPad or a video game console and sale it. It is not charging money for a program itself that is offensive to me. As I already said before, charging money for a program under a non-free license is offensive to me. Selling it for money under a free license, whether you contribute to the program or not, is permitted and not offensive to me at all. What is offensive to me is using Free Software Licenses as a way to vacuum up creativity and then turning around and abandoning updating the Free Software Versions while supporting the non-free. While no one has done this yet, as far as I know, if Nexuiz can go this far toward non-free then they might go all they way to non-free. Apparently there is no law to stop them. What will happen to Free Software Gaming if this becomes a trend? When Free Software games are noticed by a non-free publishers, will the license holders simply throw freedom out the window and embrace the non-free publishers and the non-free licenses? Again, Hedgewars does not seem to be doing this. But Nexuiz is walking a fine line in my eyes and I hope that their team does not ignore the Free Software version.

My sense of entitlement comes from many places. Partly from the Free Software License, also partly from the Free Software Movement, and from other places as well. While I have made no contribution to your project, I donate annually as a member of the Free Software Foundation. I do this because I like their work, a part of which is the writing of the GNU GPL, of which your program is under version two of. This is why I do feel like I am protecting my investment by being vocal here, as I donate to the organization that wrote the license you are using Hedgewars under. So, when I felt you might be coming into a violation of this license that I support, value, and like; I felt it my duty to freedom to point it out to you.

Honestly, when I saw you were choosing to embrace the iPad instead of boycotting it I was somewhat offended. I thought, why are people who are using a Free Software License wanting to embrace such a restrictive platform? It didn't make sense to me. I decided not to say anything, as I did not want to offend anyone. Although it looks like I have offended you and your team anyway.

I thought about donating and getting a hat, but part of the reason I did not want to is because the donate money to get a hat project was aimed at raising funds for development of Hedgewars for mobile devices which include the iPad version that I was already boycotting on principle. I did not want my money going to support embracing the iPad. Actually, for future reference, is there a way to donate to get a hat without directly supporting the development of the iPad version?

I did think, at one point, that if you did get the Apple version released that I would just report you to the GNU License Compliance Lab and that they would do what needed to be done to convenience Apple to remove Hedgewars from their iPad store. But, on thinking, I realized there was no grounds on which to remove the iPad Hedgewars version. I realized that, while hypocritical, developing for the iPad did not breech the licence.

When I read the article on the Free Software Foundation's web site about Apple taking down GNU GO because the GNU GPL was incompatible with Apple's Terms of Use; I thought I had found the grounds to stop the Hedgewars iPad version. As I know now that this license is incompatible with Apple's Terms of Use and thus, I would assume, makes Hedgewars on the iPad store a breech of the license it is under.

I posted on this forum to try to be nice. At one point, I did think of simply sending off to the GNU License Compliance Lab and having them take care of it. The Free Software Foundation did sue Cisco over breech of license and won. (Cisco came into compliance after the suit was brought against them and so the suit was dropped. So it was not won in the legal realm, rather, being sued convinced Cisco to respect the license and so continuing the lawsuit was no longer needed.) But I thought that it would be wrong to just report what I felt might be a license breech without speaking to the Hedgewars programmers and trying to resolve it first. That is why I posted here.

After getting what felt like little results here, I did e-mail off to GNU to ask them if what Hedgewars and Nexuiz are doing was a breech of license. I was told that their response was not legal advice, but indeed the GNU GPL is inherently not compatible with Apple's Terms of use. I was also informed that a program can be under more the once license, and that is simply how copyright law works right now.

If Apple somehow lets you have the Apple version under the GNU GPL, I may e-mail the GNU License Compliance Lab to see if they can convince Apple to remove it, as I do not want the Freedom that the GNU GPL gives to be stunted by Apple's Terms of Use. I see this as protecting the investment of my donations to the Free Software Foundation.

I see three possible outs here. (As the two preferable ones seem unlikely to happen anytime soon. The first preferable one is Apple changing their Terms of Use to respect Freedom. The second is you and your team boycotting Apple until they do.)

First, you might be able to do this as it would seem that only the license holder can report such a thing.

“Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same. But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation."

As such, it seems that only you can report yourself. And I doubt, sense you seem to want to make a version of Hedgewars for the iPad, that you will report yourself for the inherent incompatibility of Hedgewars being released under Apple's Terms of Use under the GNU GPL. It seems that if I report you, it may do any good as the GNU License Compliance Lab may not be able to convenience Apple to remove the iPad version of Hedgewars from their iPod store because, if I am reading what I quoted right, GNU is not the license holder. You and or your team, if I understand right, are the license holder(s.)

A second out, if reporting you would allow the GNU License Compliance Lab to intervene, would be for you to dual license under another Free Software License that is not incompatible with Apple's Terms of Use. I do not know if there are such things, but there might be. This would be preferable to you simply re-licensing under a non-free license.

A third out, dual licensing under a non-free license for the iPad version. Which, again, seems to not be illegal but I would call that unethical.

Again, I love Free Software and I like this game. That's why I cared enough to make this thread and these posts and that's why I cared enough to send off to GNU and ask what I had the power to do to make sure Hedgewars stays Free Software. My goal here is to keep Free Software Free Software. I do not have an unfounded sense of entitlement. It is founded in the ideas of Freedom and from my understanding of the license your program is under. I am still new to understanding it, in many ways, and I try to be accurate. I apologize that my language was not as polite as it should have been. I have re-wrote my post here to make this post polite. But I do not apologize for the content of my posts or my sense of entitlement.

I was hoping the fact that I care about Free Software, Hedgewars, and keeping Hedgewars Free Software would be seen as a complement and that my views would be respected. Frankly, and this last post you made to me is better, but I feel as though my views are mostly being brushed off and belittled. So, I am rather sad about this.

Um. Wow. Long read, but I made it \o/

Well, I'm no lawyer, but I'll try to help you with your double-license-confusion:
A license is a definition of the rights of an individual to use a certain program.
The program itself doesn't "have" any license, but the program is published and distributed to individuals under a license (or more), that tell the individuals what they can or can't do with the program.

Now my thoughts on this...
There are more than just one obstacle towards a release of hedgewars on apple devices, but in worst case they'll need to be jailbroken.
But if we manage to make hedgewars available on apple devices without needing the player to violate against the device's terms of use or guarantee conditions, then I'd consider that a good thing, even although I'm not a fan of apple.
Also I wouldn't think of that as unethical at all, because hedgewars would still be available for as free software anyway.
I really don't see why it would be unethical if an user who decided himself (by using software on an apple-product - esp. a non-jailbroken one - and willingly restricts what he can do by agreeing to the ToS of apple) that he doesn't want to copy software unlimited often, cannot act against his own choice due to technical restrictions that support his actual choice.

And if he should change his decision and jailbreaks his device or gets a less restricted one, then he can still use hedgewars and copy it around on that new or jailbroken device as much as he wants anyway!

Stupid metaphor goes here:
From what I can read here you're basically complaining that it would be unethical by the society if somebody who locks himself into a prison cell can't get out of the cell until he himself uses the key he possessed all the time and unlocks/leaves the cell, even although every (at least not against law acting) human has a right to freedom.

I'm impressed about your dedication (or even obsession) regarding this topic, but IMO you're making a big deal of something that is a minor issue.
We already publish hedgewars under the GPL and every user/player can do the same because the GPL allows him, so users of hedgewars will always have the possibility to make use of as many rights as they wish to!

  sheepluva <- me  my code stats -> 
a Hedgewars Developer

  
click here to message me

   <- where I'm from  what I speak -> 

Thank you for reading everything. I am glad someone cared to, and your views were interesting.

Am I to assume that jailbreak allows people to install software on their own computers (iPads in this instance) without the need of Apple's permission or the Apple Store? (Like they can do with any non-Apple computer [as far as I know] and should be able to do with every computer?) If so, wouldn't the lesser of two evils be if Hedgewars was just put on Apple with jailbreak than through the Apple app store? At least then the GNU GPL would not be sent through the Apple App Store's Terms of Use that does not respect the users' freedoms.

Richard Stallman, in at least one of his speeches, described a scenario as an example of the difficulty non-free software puts people in if they choose to use it. In this scenario someone is using a non-free program and their friend comes up and asks them for a copy of the program. Richard then describes the lesser of two evils as the person breaking the non-free program's license and making a copy for their friend. He calls this the lesser of two evils because the person who put the program under a non-free license specifically targeted to break up the social solidarity of the software community. Therefore, if one is in a position of doing wrong to one person or another, it is the lesser of two evils to do wrong to the person who did wrong to you first. That is the person who targeted to break up the social solidarity of the software community by releasing their program as non-free software. He went on to describe that breaking agreements is not a good thing and that the way to make sure that we are never in this position of choosing between evils is to choose good in the first place and just not use non-free software and only use Free Software.

The logical conclusion for people respecting users' freedoms is to boycott Apple's iPad until Apple changes their Terms of Use to respect users' freedoms.

But not with the iPad while staying legal. And that's the key problem. Apple's Terms of Use is obstructing, and thus is incompatible with, the GNU GPL because it denies the users' the complete set of freedoms that the GNU GPL guarantees them. The users are put between a rock and a hard place and told to either value the GNU GPL (which it appears they would currently have to jailbreak the iPad to do in order to get the complete set of freedoms that the GNU GPL guarantees them) or value Apple's Terms of Use and be denied the complete set of freedoms that the GNU GPL guarantees them.

Or, again, the developers and or the users can choose to make the best choice which is to never put themselves into this situation in the first place by boycotting the iPad until Apple changes their Terms of Use to respect users' freedoms.

Of course, I do not advice anyone to do anything illegal.

I have posted on the Nexuiz forum against what they have done (http://www.alientrap.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6053&p=77815#p77815) and would like to share a quote from the Tremulous team. (http://tremulous.net/)

"Dear Tremulous Community,

This is the second time in such a short amount of time that we have a monumentous announcement to make. The overwhelming concern of the Tremulous players has been staggering, we never dreamed that our fans were so loyal to our cause. It brings a tear to my eye remembering the thousands of e-mails we received from players around the world, expressing concern over the future of their beloved game.

We, Darklegion Development, have decided to break off the partnership with Microsoft and continue to pursue our own interests in the direction of Tremulous. It may not be the financially best choice to make in these troubling times, but this is a decision reached with our hearts not with our wallets.

Once again, we are extremely grateful for your trust in open source and Tremulous; we highly value each and every one of our loyal fans!

<3 Darklegion Development"

Hum, I happen to know a developer of Nexuiz irl, but to be honest I don't think that I'll discuss this with him at all.

I didn't even know Nexuiz would be available on console and that they would create new art for that.

And to be honest, I'm amazed, what a great thing, a win-win both for the customer and the developers!
- The players can decide to play Nexuiz with new (non-free I guess) art on a console if they chose to; a choice and experience they could otherwise not make.
- The developers have a higher motivation and if they should make money off it: more time to contribute also to the free parts of the game. (If they don't fight too much about where the money should go to :P)

Actually you just reminded me of the several cases where the use of free software in a commercial environment or free software working together with commercial software brought a lot of man-power and progress to the free software parts.

I don't know what they do license-wise - your post suggests that they double-license the already under the GPL available code under a proprietary license,
and I can understand that you're against double-licensing because of the issue of "who wrote what?" in a open contribution project.
Of course the perfect solution would be to bring the engine to the console under the GPL and the art under a proprietary license.
If that is possible on the consoles they want to support - I do not know - but it would of course be awesome if the console manufacturers would allow that.

Keep in mind that hedgewars code and art is currently _all_ available under GPL or similar licenses.
So I really don't think Apple would accept the game into their appstore under the GPL (and therefore no need for double-license) __IF__ their terms of use had not conflicted. Because then chances had been good that they wouldn't make any money off it, just financial loss if there were no parts (e.g. art) that is exclusive or at least pay-to-use on their platform.
So it would be probably either be double-licensing or not having a chance to release on apple devices legally at all (because they wouldn't want something they can't make money off - as there is enough other software available) - and that would hurt the players because they wouldn't have the option to enjoy the game experience on some particular devices if they wanted to.
So boycotting Apple would not only not work, but also express that we don't understand how they make their living. Also it would HURT the players instead of helping them any.

Like you, I'm a great fan of free software. But if you think that _all_ should be free, then you're being naive. Commercial software is something that has to exist, for good reasons, same with commercial products in general. If there was no commercial software, free software would be worse, many people would be without job and customers would have a lot less choices and experiences to make.

Do I encourage people to use free software? Yes, I do.
Do I want to force people to _only_ use free software and therefore limit their freedom of choice? No, I don't.
Do I want all people to want to use only free software? No, because that would cause a lot of damage to developers (of which many wouldn't be such anymore) and also those using free software.

I hope this makes clear to you where I - and maybe other people stand.
Your idealism is nice, but idealism well, is idealism. That's like thinking a democracy would be fair and uncorrupted over infinite time or that communism would work.
SURE, it would be awesome if all software would be free with NO negative consequences, it would be awesome if nobody would have to work, be sick or ever suffer or die, it would be awesome if nobody would hunger but if also nobody would have to work hard in order to produce food - but those things aren't going to happen, because they are just not possible.
And that's why most of the people will, sorry, ignore your posts here. Because they see your idealistic opinion on this topic and realize that there's no point in discussing with you because you're asking for the impossible to happen.

I appreciate your interest in hedgewars and that you are concerned about ethic/moral issues towards the contributors and player, which I really can't see given the circumstances.

We're trying hard to give as many players the possibility to enjoy hedgewars the way they want and we hope you can appreciate that.

Best regards,
sheepluva

Seeing how much time I invested in this post I have to say that I won't elaborate this any further. I just don't have time for that, I need to work towards prolonging my existence instead and actually I don't even have time to proof-read this properly :/ Sure, I'll have some spare minutes again soon, but I'll prefer to use those for making hedgewars a smoother experience to the players - I think I've said everything I could to give you an insight of what's going on in that strange thing I call my brain, well gotta go, have fun with my non-native uncorrected English there ;-P! - *swoosh*

  sheepluva <- me  my code stats -> 
a Hedgewars Developer

  
click here to message me

   <- where I'm from  what I speak -> 

I do not see Free Software as better with non-free Software in existence. The goal of the Free Software Movements is a completely Free Software World. Non-Free Software is an ethical wrong that needs to be peaceably eliminated by being replaced with Free Software. It is idealism, but everything is possible, so there is no reason it can not come into being. If it were not for dedication to idealism over practicality there would be no GNU/Linux System in the first place. Back when the project started most people thought it was impractical, idealistic, stupid, and even wrong to try to make a Free Software Operating System. Instead of giving up, giving in, or compromising; the people who valued the ethics of Free Software pushed on anyway. Sadly, many use non-free software in Free Software Systems; such as ubuntu. That is why I use Trsiquel instead. They spit in the face of the idealism and ethics that gave them the system in the first place. They put practicality above values and thus achieve nothing in the name of freedom. That is why there are many people who have sold out to putting non-free Software in otherwise Free Software Systems and people who try to make Free Software non-free. They either do not understand the values of what gave them the software, or they simply do not care and prefer practicality over ethics.

You're suggesting that users have a right to choose to embrace closed platforms. That's like saying people have a right to choose to be slaves. I do not understand, ethically, how anyone could make such an assertion. You're basically show me a cage called an iPad and saying that if users want to run into the cage that I shouldn't have a problem with that. What happens if other companies start to work like Apple if users value practicality, performance, and confidence, (or with Apple a shinny case) above Freedom? You might see the death of Free Software in the modern world.

You're basically supporting people who are doing what is either vendor lock or something akin to it. That's not freedom, and people should be encouraging people to avoid vendor lock; not see it as a viable choice for them to make.

You may use or develop Free Software, but have you ever listened to Stallman's speeches or read any of his essays?

It seems in some ways that some people like the software Free Software creates but do not share its values. That's the reason "open source" exists as a split off movement. They liked the Free Software but not the values of Free Software so they created their own term for it so they could "sell" people on the idea of using what is almost always Free Software but they would then speak nothing of the values of Freedom that created the Free Software. Or, in other words, they intentionally tried to forget where they came from. They love the practicality of Free Software, but do not share the ethics.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Oh come on. Sorce is licensed under GPL. You can do everything you want with it (except closing it). If you want to you can jailbreak your IPhone, compile it and play on jailbroken IPhone. Someone tried to get it work on the N900. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? If someone have the IPhone why shouldn't he have the right to play this game?
This is getting hilarious that you're saying that what platfor we should be available and on which we shouldn't.

I support free software.
I support people's freedom to decide if their labor is donated to a cause or if they get paid for it.
I support people's freedom to choose if they want to be in "slavery" as you call it or not. They are grown-up people, I respect their choices, I'm not some extremist dictator maniac that will dictate them what to do and how to live.

Talking about slavery:
You do not want any software developer to decide what happens with the product of their labor and whether they will get paid for it or not.
You want to take away their base of existence for your own potential advantage (which wouldn't exist because the whole software market would suffer terrible consequences, which would damage not only you but also all other people)

And about ethic:
You think it's ethical to forbid people to charge others for their work?
You think it's ethical to force your opinion and others, thinking of all other people as inferior so that it's better you decide for them rather than they themselves?

You want to force your opinion and habits of live on others, you sir are a typical extremist.
I do not support any kind of extremism.

This conversation has ended for me.
I do not welcome you or your extremist opinions anymore.

Your definition of ethics is completely off, even dangerous, just a silly pretext for trying to accomplish something that would take away people's freedom of choice and revenue, and damage the software society beyond anything you seem to be able to imagine.

  sheepluva <- me  my code stats -> 
a Hedgewars Developer

  
click here to message me

   <- where I'm from  what I speak -> 

@f13:

If you were actively developing HW and supporting these devs that do some damned hard and very good work, you wouldn't have time to be the asshat that Tiyuri so appropriately described. It seems these days we have a lot of bullshitting, big talking armchair quarterbacks, but not enough people who are so busy doing the work and helping that they don't have time to spew pointless opinionated rhetoric about something they don't even have a hand in. If you want to be a FSF fanboy douche bag, go do it somewhere else. These guys have taken a genre dominated by a long-time commercial-only developer and made a superior product for FREE. I use that term loosely because there is nothing free about the creation of game content, updates, the fact that devs are active on this forum, the website and forum upkeep, and the time and money spent to make this a kick-ass product that your sorry ass can simply click "Download" on, and then feel like you somehow have the right to tell the devs how and when they can distribute it. If this discussion is about rights, it should be about the ones you have taken, but do not have. The "right" to use this board is solely at the discretion of the HW team. They could have kicked your ass off, and been completely justified in doing so after so verbosely criticizing their work and their distribution of it. But they remained the respectable party and responded strongly, but within their own rights. You are just a self-deceived troll that thinks your twisted understanding of the GPL makes you an expert. News flash: you're an ungrateful idiot.

Insanex

@Insanex

Free Software is about software not having owners. Read the chapter called "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" in Free Software Free Society. The PDF is available at no cost. You seem to be under the delusion that the Hedgewars Team own Hedgewars. Once software is licensed under the GPL it belongs to everyone, they no longer have any real claim to ownership over it any more or less than I do. Again, its very similar to licensing your art as creative commons. It is not yours anymore. It now belongs to everyone.

I am simply talking about something that belongs to me, you, and everyone. It doesn't matter if I made it. They chose to give it away. They don't own it anymore. I am not going to pretend it belongs to them just because they made it. That's not how the license they chose to put it under works.

While it is nice to be grateful, I am not required to be. In fact, however, I have said that I like the game many times. It doesn't matter if I made the game, donated to the game, or helped the game in any way. It belongs to me, you, and everyone now because the original team licensed it this way. If they did not understand that, then that is their fault for not researching the license they licensed their software under.

You are the one that does not understand the license, as you continue to insist that the people creating the game own it or have any right of ownership to it. They are the license holder. That is the closest thing to ownership they still legally have. Which means that, as far as I understand, I can not turn them into the GNU License Compliance Lab for releasing Hedgewars on the iPad and expect to get anywhere. That's really the only things remotely close to ownership that they have a legal claim to. Even the content is under the GNU GPL. If I understand correctly their content is under the GNU GPL as well. I could legally make my own Hedgewars platform game and sell it on ebay and be doing nothing legally wrong. I could sell it for $5.00, $10,00, $100,000; and I am doing nothing wrong. I actualy saw someone selling Secret Maryo Chronicles on ebay and that's legal. As is a place I saw selling Audacity. Because that's how the GNU GPL works.

Did the person selling Secret Maryo do anything illegal? No. Because he now owns the game because he downloaded it. I own Hedgewars because I downloaded it and the GNU GPL says that's so. It was designed to be this way. As Stallman says at length. Did the guy selling Secret Maryo donate back to anyone? Did he contribute to building them game? Maybe, but neither were necessary.

Calling me names is no excuse for the fact that it is you that does not understand the license and what it gives me legal right to do. What it gives everyone legal right to do. Maybe instead of assuming you know things, you should read?

According to the GNU GPL, I own Hedgewars because I downloaded it. It's mine now, I can change it, sell it, base new games off of it. And it's all legal. It was built to do this, made to be this way. That's what freedom is. I could make it with cute little hamster graphics and spin off a competitor project. You don't seem to understand this.

You are also lumping arguments together.

Someone promoting freedom is important as well as someone making the game. What is the point of a Free Software game if it looses it Freedom? I would then be supporting something that is ethically wrong.

Also, this is their board. On this issue, you are correct. They have full right to ban me. I never doubted that. I am thankful they have let me stay and debate. Not sure sense when debate became known as trolling. I suppose the same day you never learned about the GNU GPL. But yes, they own the web domain that hosts this board and they have full legal right to ban me without needing any reason at all. That's freedom of a message board. If I set up my own domain, server, and forum; I would have the same rights. Just as me downloading the GNU GPL covered software gives me rights to it.

And, yes, you and Tiyuri are right that I have no specific legal rights to updates. The rights concern the Software as is really. They make no statement that I am owed any future updates at all.

However, they does not mean that I will stop making my voice heard as long as they allow me to be here or that I will not give my view on how I think they should or should not distribute the game. They don't have to listen to me, but that doesn't mean I won't give my view.

People keep commenting, then I respond. That's what discussing/debating is. And of course I'm trying to push my views and ethics on people, again, that's the whole point of debate. That's what you're supposed to do. Did no one here give a persuasive speech in high school or college? The whole point is to find a topic, state why you're right and the others are wrong, and try to change their minds to agree with you. It's healthy to every free society.

It seems people have lost or grown a hatred for the art of debate. You know, the things that makes free societies great. I have a right to debate. They have a right to kick me off this forum but not stop me from debating. That is because this forum is their property, unlike Hedgewars. I could continue debating elsewhere, if I really wanted to. Though, not sure much good it would do anywhere else.

Hey, I learned something along the way. I thought I could just turn them in for breech of license and figured Apple would take them off the iPad or the GNU Compliance lab would show they why they can't be on the iPad. I was being nice making this thread, at one point I was just going to quietly turn them in and not tell anyone because I wasn't sure if I wanted a debate. I didn't realize that turning then in wouldn't do little good if GNU or I was not the license holder.

So, really, the big thing I was going to do I realized I couldn't do anyway. And I realized that they could just re-license to get around it and that this process is legal.

So, I do have some egg on my face for those two things. As such, it was clear to me that while I understand the legal, philosophical, and ethical aspects of the GNU GPL; I clearly had more to learn about copyright itself. So frankly, debating here is really all that's left for me now. Explaining to people the ethical issue. As it appears if someone is not the license holder they can't do much good calling on GNU to enforce the license.

So, while I get the four freedoms the GNU GPL gives me that I understand and you seem not to, I apparently can't call on GNU to enforce taking Hedgewars off the iPad for its incompatibly with Apple's Terms of Use. I could e-mail Apple, but sense I am not the license holder, they simply just may not care. That seems to be the difference between GNU GO and Hedgears; I'm assuming then GNU holds the license to GNU GO, or that after getting on the iPad GNU GO realized Apple's Terms of Use denied freedom and did the right thing and demanded that Apple change its Terms of Use. At which point Apple clearly decided it would rather drop GNU GO instead of changing their non-free ways.

So, Hedgewars may go on Apple with the GNU GPL and be in conflict with their terms of use. But, sense I am not the license holder, if I e-mail and tell GNU and or if I e-mail and tell Apple; it doesn't seem as though it would do anything. And, Hedgewars Team doesn't seem to care about this issue like whoever GNU GO's license holder is does.

Thus, maybe Hedgewars will get on Apple iPad, be in legal conflict with their tearms of use, and no one with legal power will care.

I don't see why you all are upset, Hedgewars Team wins, they succeeded in embracing iPad as it kills GNU GPL freedom on its platform. And I'm supposed to cheer this on as a good thing as people choose slavery over freedom because they want to play Hedgewars on an over-priced over-hyped closed platform? I think not.

And to be frank, Tiyuri's last post, while still trying to belittle me and brush off the ethical issue, actually addressed my points and it seems to me he has a better legal understanding of this than you do.

His point, in short, is that sense the source code is still available that Hedgewars team is not violating the license and is doing nothing legally wrong. He specifically added "in practice." Which, "in practice," he is right. In practice he is doing nothing illegal. In, "practice," it is Apple that is allowing (if it chooses to) a license that conflicts with its terms of use onto its store and it is in "practice" that Apple is denying users their freedoms. Not Hedgewars team. Tiyuri simply, from a legal debate, washed his hands clean of it and kicked the issue over to apple. And, legally, he is right. And, from my research, sense I am not the license holder, me e-mailing GNU or Apple is likely to achieve nothing.

The reason he's left this is because he realizes that he's made his choice to embrace Apple, knowing what they do. He decided that he doesn't care about the ethical issue. And he's decided that legally he doesn't have to care. And, sadly, legally he's right.

So, again, on the battle of legality he's won and the game will likely continue on as he and his team planned for the iPad. I learned I did not have the legal high ground to turn the game into the GNU Compliance Lab like I thought I did, as I did not realize I needed to be the license holder to do this.

While, ethically, it's still against the entire point of Free Software what he is doing. Thus, I still count this as an ethical victory for my debate's sake. But, unfortunately, the game is likely to go on the iPad anyway.

It was kinda like Tivo. Sense the still released the source code, under GPL 2, they did not breech license. Even though they made it so no one would compile new versions of the software and actually run them on Tivo. (A key point to being able to make new versions of the software at all.) Sense the released the source code they were still legal. GPL 3 corrects the Tivo issue.

However, this issue is larger and, while against the point of the GNU GPL, it does not breech it. Or, rather, it might breech it but as not the license holder there is not much I can do.

So, there you go.

I didn't really read the long long long wall of text that you wrote after my last post but I've seen some sentences that stood out and they are complete nonsense already.

Stop spamming this forums with your wrong FUD nonsense.
You already shared your unexperienced, uninformed, wannabe-ethical and totally biased opinion with this community and from what I've seen most of us strongly disagree with you.

There's no further need to spam here for you, nobody cares about what you have to say anymore, move along.
If people want to know actual facts about the FSF etc. they can google those themselves, they don't need you to dictate them what they have to think.

I'll close this thread as I see no further purpose of it rather than gathering more spam and possible ending up in a flame war.

EDIT: I marked the thread as [solved] as your question seems to have been answered as you yourself stated more than once that it would be legal for us to do so.

  sheepluva <- me  my code stats -> 
a Hedgewars Developer

  
click here to message me

   <- where I'm from  what I speak ->