*Comment edited*, no need for ugly words to express how everyone feels about your existence in general.

I've only made almost insignificant additions to this game but I would LOVE for every bit to be included in the iPad release (and future possible iPhone or Android releases for that matter) so this game can thrive and get better every day, and I'm sure everyone who submitted stuff feels the same way.

Just wish I could do more and help more people from different devices join their PC brethren in "insane" online fun!

Maybe they don't become as boring, annoying and useless as you.

Wow,

SOMEONE needs to really get a LIFE

One reason my next game project might be freeware but probably not open source (or at least not under some GNU license) ... Just to avoid that trolling ...

TBH all your efforts etc. are pretty worthless IMO: If someone contributed in the past and feels bad about the iPad (or generally iDevices) release and wants his or her contribution removed/excluded - just contact unC0Rr! I don't think anyone would have a problem with that - neither on the dev team nor one of the contributors. This could be done within seconds not requiring any third parties (like you or the GNU Compliance Lab) to take actions or whatever.

Also - as mentioned before - what I don't get about all the GNU fuzz ... noone included any restrictions other than GPL in the code. So you could - if you feel like it - recompile your own iPad release and submit it to Apple or just upload it yourself (on a jailbroken phone). You wouldn't violate our rights nor those of any other (as long as you release your changes etc., I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about).

As mentioned before I'm not a huge fan of Apple nor of their restrictions (I'd love to write my own iPad/iPhone games on my Windows PC for example) but I really think those differences between Apple and GNU are tiny and not as massive/important as some people (including you) might think. There are lot worse things happening out there including the selling of renamed/unnamed/uncredited versions of open source software as well as code theft. If you'd like to do something for free software, try to fight those instead of devs trying to get their own game(s) on different devices.

I understand that the game could just as easily be made for a jail-broken device. It's the principle of the matter. Apple shouldn't have the ability to tell people what can and can not go on its hardware and or os. No one should have to submit for approval, including you.

I know it may seem like a small thing, this one game, but it sets a precedent. Apple will not change its ways so long as no one forces their hand with loud protest and shunning. Apple has proven that. With the case of GNU GO, the FSF allowed Apple to decide if it was going to change its terms of use or take down GNU GO. Apple didn't change.

If Hedgewars team cared about the values of the license they put the game under, they would give apple the same ultimatum.

If Hedgewars team does not care about the values of the license they put the game under, why did they put the game under the GNU GPL in the first place if they had no intentions of enforcing it in every case?

I would rather there be a mobile Hedgewars game that could work on jail-broken ipads. That way the people who cared enough to throw off apple's restrictions could enjoy the game. And there are many other non-restrictive devices that Hedgewars can go on.

Hedgewars and its team could have taken this, a route that would have made a public stance against the restrictions of apple and set a positive example for the community.

Rather, I seem to be the only person here that cares and so far I've been dismissed, had my topic locked, flamed, been not given direct answers from the project lead, and cursed at by the project lead.

In fact, I think you might be the only person who even dialoged with me.

I realize that this may not be the biggest issue to take a stance on. I did so mostly because:

A: I like the game.
B: It's such a clear cut issue.
C: I thought if I pointed out the facts someone might care and I could make a difference.

I won't continue to pursue this issue here if the development team doesn't care to support the ideas of the license they put the game under. I really can't, it wouldn't do any good. Only the license holders, from best I understand, can enforce the license. I mostly made this post in the hopes that at least one of them would care enough to speak up.

If I can ask another question, if the Hedgewars team does not agree entirely with (as their actions demonstrate and as my suspicions have been been confirmed by the GNU GPL Compliance Lab) the values of the GNU GPL and the Free Software Movement that created it; then why did you all release the game under the license in the first place if you had no intentions of staying to it completely?

The reason I even bothered to contact the Compliance Lab was because my concern wasn't taken seriously here. It is a license violation, as I thought. The only reason, from what I understand, that FSF nor I can act is because only the copyright holders can act on violations. So, really, it comes down to the fact that you're breaking your own license and deciding not to sue yourselves. A sad way for freedom for this cool game to die. Or, more specifically, you're allowing apple to break the license and not caring when the fact is pointed out. (Actually, yelling at me as if the issue of freedom doesn't matter and brushing it off instead of facing it.) Embracing their restrictive ways rather than renouncing them. (Which is what you would be doing if the values of the license have meaning for you.)

You can lock this post too if you feel you need to. I don't think there's anything left to say. When I first brought this issue up I had hoped it would be a quick fix as I assumed the game creators, having licensed this way, cared about freedom and would be happy to boycott apple to make a point. I still have no idea why you licensed this game this way if you don't intend to uphold the license's values. That's the part that's most frustrating and confusing to me. To license a certain way is to agree with a set a values that you intend to uphold. Clearly, you made a pact with a set of values you do not intend to uphold.

Which means you all have a very poor understand of the GNU GPL, probably not knowing what it really stands for or is about in the first place.

I don't know what else to say here. I tried.

Can anyone lock this ****** already?

All the devs seem to agree to allow the release on the iPad entirely.
The code is completely open.
Case closed.

f13ticket, you already brought this issue to our attention and it was thoroughly discussed and you yourself admitted that your concern lacked foundation. You kept on spaming anyway so I closed the thread, which didn't stop you for long it seems.
Read the my last post in http://hedgewars.org/node/2202#comment-14898, there's not much to add.

I do feel pity for you, but that doesn't mean that I won't consider banning you if you keep on spaming these forums with your pathetic attempt to help the cause of free software (but actually I think you're damaging and ridiculing it with your uninformed, intolerant, will-imposing and obsessed behavior).

If you participate properly in the discussions on the forums you're welcome, but we do not want trolls that keep upsetting people (for what ego/imaginary reasons ever) here.

'nuff said.

f13ticket:
Few points you missed during the whole discussion:

The license holders (i.e. those contributed but I'll limit those the the active ones) DO care - but they agreed on the release (or just didn't answer yet, haven't heard of any disagreeing so far; if someone disagrees ... see above). Just 'cause noone said "no" doesn't mean noone cares! There's still the possibility to dual license software. People obtaining software through a specific license like the GPL can't apply any alternative license, but the license holder is able to do so.

So in short: Let's just say we released the mobile Version under a different license (if you really want to, we can set up one and add it to the repository). Everything fine.

Regarding the release on jailbroken phones/pads: Noone will stop you or anyone else from compiling the source and release the binaries (or however its handled there). I'm no lawyer or whatever by any means but we can't promote jailbreaking people's phones. There are whacky laws in different countries (especially USA) and people might even be able to sue us for telling them to jailbreak their phone and ruining it that way.

Also the game was put under the GPL v2 long time ago but we kept that license to avoid discussion such as this one.

And just another note: I assume by "project lead" you're talking about Tiyuri - he isn't the projec lead - there isn't really someone who controls everything and defines do's and don't's. Closest to that would be unC0Rr. Feel free to contact him (he's the initial copyright holder as well) but I'm 100% sure he supports the iPad/iPhone idea and still stands behind the license. And I can really understand Tiy's reactions - they might be a little bit too harsh sometimes though - as you just keep nagging and sometimes it really feels like all you'd like to do is trying to limit our rights on what to do with our own work (which you can't as we are the often mentioned license holders) or just shut down the whole game ("I'd like to sue you but only the license holder can.").

lol?

Heh f13ticket,
I just got around to read your second, seemingly endless, post in this thread.
I have to admit that one seemed way more sane than your previous ones and it almost made me feel sorry for my bit rude response here, as you're talking less in FUD tactics now (maybe because you finally realized you can't take the game licensing rights away from the creators).
So yeah, you brought your point across again, as you already did in the old thread, several times.

Also you seem a little better informed than before (or at least presenting info in a less fanatic way), but you still don't seem to get what a license actually is.
We do realize that there is a philosophy behind the GNU GPL2, but we are not here to enforce that philosophy on the world and to boycott Apple/etc.

I think our common goal is to maintain this game and to give as many players the possibility to enjoy the game in as many ways as possible and to participate in development (or just do local modifications) if they want to.

Thank god. and yes, you surely did :P

I understand what a license is. But to be honest, the GNU GPL is a different license than many and you still don't seem to understand it.

I understand that the Hedgewars team doesn't intend to remove Hedgewars from the apple store. Really, to be honest, I'd rather have apple store change their terms of use.

For the sake of the license, I will explain its values. At least then maybe you all will understand why I am so passionate about it and why I took a lot of time in making these many posts

I assumed Hedgewars team shared Free Software values as they put the game under the GNU GPL. But clearly the team doesn't, or at least not entirely.

The term, "open source," came up here. The GNU GPL is a Free Software License. "Open source," was created as a way for people who do not want to talk about the ethics of freedom to talk about essentially the same software as Free Software. They felt they could get more people to use their software this way. The goal of the Free Software movement is for everyone to have computing freedom. The goal of open source people is for their software to get on as many machines as possible, with or without freedom.

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

The license was created with the values of software belonging to everyone. Everyone has power so no one has power over anyone else. "The Software is Free so that the Users are Free." The entire point of the license, and the movement, is to take power away from the developers and publishers and give it to all users. That's why it is designed so the developers do not really own their software. It was designed so that the software belongs to all users.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

That's why it's frustrating for me when you keep saying that Hedgewars team own Hedgewars. They put it under a license where they aren't supposed to own it. They don't own Hedgewars, they're just the license holders. With most licenses, being the license holder is the same as owning the software. With the GNU GPL, it's not. The whole point of the GNU GPL is that the developers do not own the software they put under the GNU GPL; they are giving that ownership to all the users by licensing it under the GNU GPL.

I'm not saying these are the values of Hedgewars team. I'm not saying Hedgewars team intended this. All I'm saying is that these are the values of Free Software, myself, and the GNU GPL. So, legally, like it or not; Hedgewars team did give Hedgewars to the world because it licensed the game under the GNU GPL.

That's why all users have the right to use Free Software however they want, copy it as they want, modify it as they want, release modified versions as they want, and sell copies of them for a profit as they want. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) (Though there is a restriction put in place regarding the source code to keep the source code available to all users.)

The things that can be done are for everyone to be able to do. I don't have to ask permission to do anything listed above; they are for all users. The license gives us all permission to do all these things already as the team already gave permission by licensing under the GNU GPL.

Really, the only snag in this perfect vision of everyone sharing everything freely is that copyright license enforcement requires the copyright holders to enforce the things that can't be done.

The things that can't be done, such as apple's terms of use restricting GNU GPL freedoms, can only be addressed by the copyright holders.

This is why license stewardship is important. If the Hedgewars team had given the license to Hedgewars to the Free Software Foundation (the people who wrote the license) for them to look after and enforce; then all I would have to do to solve this is contact the FSF and they would handle it the same way they did GNU GO. They told Apple to change its terms of use to not violate the GNU GPL, and apple took GNU GO down instead.

Free Software people would rather have the software not exist than to be non-free as non-free is seen as an ethical wrong and it's better that it doesn't exist.

A similar problem happened with the linux kernel. Linus does not share Free Software values, yet put his kernel under the GNU GPL Version 2. He allows non-free software in the kernel, yet sense the copyright holders care more about getting linux on more systems and more things to work with linux than pure freedom; then they put other things in front of freedom. We use linux-libre, which takes the non-free out. We put freedom first, and everything else after that.

I donate to the FSF, as I agree with these values. And that's why I posted all of these posts. I like this game, the license, and wanted to correct a violation. But I can't, only the license holders can.

If you think I'm mocking the FSF or do not understand the license, I ensure you I am not mocking the FSF and I do understand the license. I encourage everyone to read the links I posted as I have and this is what they say.

I think you just think I'm wrong because what I'm saying, the values of the Free Software movement and GNU GPL License, are so different than most other licenses. I prefer the values of Free Software and the GNU GPL.

Well, that's why I posted this thread. So that the license holders could see how the GNU Compliance Lab feels, and if they feel they same they know who they can contact. Really, that's all I can do.

Well, if it's a non-free license it would not be fine. Though, frankly, the ipad version basically becomes non-free software so far as the ipad itself is concerned because of the apple terms of use, as has been covered. So, really it would be just as bad and not really any different than it is now for the ipad version.

I was wondering how the law would reflect that. That's why it would have to be called Hedgewars Mobile and the site itself would have to let people figure it out that it can go on the ipad themselves or imply it in such a way that it does not outright suggest it. Wording would have to be done carefully to stay legal.

That's what I was assuming as I made a post asking why you all haven't updated to GNU GPL Version 3 and didn't get any responses.
http://www.hedgewars.org/node/2055

I didn't know he wasn't the project lead. He's the only e-mail on the contact page.

I'm not going to sue you. There isn't a case as I am not the license holders. I would like the GNU Compliance Lab to resolve the issue, but they can only intervene should at least one license holder feel the need to involve them. Otherwise, to spite the fact of flying in the face of the values of the license, no one else can really sue you for this as far as I know.

Yes, that would be cool, but not gonna happen I guess (regardless of what we'd do or not do)

Your explanation is redundant, you explained the philosophy a few times already and many of us probably knew it before anyway.
We do understand why YOU are so passionate about it, but it's time for you to realize that _we are not_. We are not stupid or something, we do know where you're coming from, but we just don't share your idealistic opinion and passion the way you'd like us to. That won't change, so let it go.

Wrong assumption - as you pointed out yourself that license is used for many software projects that focus on "open-source" more than on "free".

Yep, live with it.
Also I think that we still share those values way more than you think we do. Our approach is, compared to yours, just less philosophical and theoretical, but instead more practical and focused on the actual result and the community.
We're not going to take a game away from gamers that willingly agree to have it on a device with restrictions and go "HAHA, now you're left with nothing, but at least your nothing is philosophically free!"

I don't think you're entirely wrong, the thing is that
, but that WE (or at least I) prefer that as many people as possible can _actually_ play, enjoy, modify, customize, contibute to, etc. hedgewars as possible.

Although some reactions here have been rude (because you're trying to enforce your opinion on us) many here actually took the time to read and to reply to your long, redundant and partly rude posts. You made your point, several times, we listened. We understood how you feel about this issue, but we obviously don't feel the same way as we have other priorities than you have.
There's no point in any further discussion, because both sides are entitled to their opinion.
If you really want to know why the GPL2 was chosen, maybe ask unC0Rr, but I guess it was chosen because it was the "standard" license for open-source projects that considered themselves being more or less free, back then.

If that makes you think of us as "open-source people" that don't care about users' freedom, so be it, I won't be heartbroken just because of that :P

f13ticket, think of this in this way
the game has its costs, hosting, server, bandwidth and takes time to develop
appstore has provided a way for us to self mantain all this, the fsf has not; however the fsf has provided us a licence model under which anyone can contribute to the project and keep the credit for it

i really don't see any problem with having an opensource game on appstore (as long as the sources are available)
i admire your idealistic ideas, but sometimes it's necessary to think to the real world

Oh no, apple doesn't support freedom and a GPL project is being put on the app store. Holy freakin christ, let's write a 10 page essay on it.

Please just STOP. This isn't your project, the devs can do whatever they want, it's their game. Go, browse over the source it's right here:

http://code.google.com/p/hedgewars/source/browse/

oohh look instructions on how to grab the code:

http://code.google.com/p/hedgewars/source/checkout

Please go and complain to someone else, you don't own this project. People like you DON'T make the world a better place, they infact make it worse. I use linux, 98% of my system is FSF approved, includiing hedgewars. However I do not think that because the devs have decided to maybe earn some money and stick it up on the app store, that the world has somehow ended.

I told you so. I wonder how long it will be before they do restrict applications they don't approve. Or how long it might be before windows and ubuntu fallow suit.

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/macappstore

"Well, it's official. Apple has now announced it's bringing the App Store concept to the Mac and it looks like they'll be restricting apps with FairPlay DRM too for good measure. When we first began talking about the problems with the App Store on the iPhone and iPod Touch, people wanted us to drop it and stop talking about the DRM tricks being pulled by Apple on the grounds that the iPhone wasn't a general purpose computer (it is, and the iPad is too) but rather an appliance.

Presumably, Apple won't (yet) be stopping the Mac from installing software from other sources as they have with the iPhone, at least not just yet. But consider this: just like the original iMac shipped without a floppy drive, the MacBook Air (recently updated) was the first Mac without an optical drive -- will this have the effect, intentional or otherwise of making the App Store the only place to buy certain software, including its own iLife suite of 'lifestyle' applications?

While downloading software from independent or non-approved developers isn't likely to go away tomorrow, this is an important wake-up call:"

The article continues, it's a good read.

ya know drugs are illegal in most states for a reason...

It's been a while sense I have posted here. I mostly stayed away because of how offended I was from the reaction people had to me. Not only with what I had to say, but to me as a person.

Other Free Software games have made strides for freedom. When Nexuiz started going down the proprietary road there was an uprising of their developers that was so well supported by the fan community that they forked the project into Xonotic. When Tremulous floated the idea of going proprietary there was such an outcry from the fans that they were moved to change their minds.

I am glad that Hedgewars is Free Software. However, when I brought up to the team the proprietary nature of the Apple license situation they did not return with congratulations for my vigilance nor did they commend me for my commitment to the ideas of freedom.

Instead I was met with a disparaging comment relating, “Also the game was put under the GPL v2 long time ago but we kept that license to avoid discussion such as this one.” Apparently discussion (free speech) is something that they wanted to avoid; especially about an issue of freedom. And the fans were replete in their disdain for someone showing concern for freedom; and attacked my ideas as well as my character profusely.

The sheer level of the immature and unprofessional nature of some of those that responded to me was simply staggering. I was deeply offended, personally and professionally, and still do not understand why I was treated this way.

I loved Worms, and was glad to see a Free Software alternative to it. But now I have issues with recommending this game to people considering the values of a substantial number of those making it and playing it. I have tried asking Team17 to release the Worms 2 series under the GNU-GPL; something ID Software is famous for doing with Doom; and have yet to get a response. The only Free Software alternative to Hedgewars I can find is Warmux. And, while neat, it does not seem to match the feel and features of Worms in the way and at the level that Hedgewars does.

I doubt I'll get an apology, but am still waiting for one. My concerns should have been treated seriously, especially at the level of documentation that I provided. I even went as far as contacting the GNU License Lab that agreed with me that breech of license was taking place. I should have been treated as the hero I was for being open, forthright, and vocal about freedom. Instead, like children protecting a dirty little secret I was exposing, I was treated with verbal abuse and contempt.

I suppose then it should be understandable as to why I have mixed feelings about Hedgewars and its community.

Thank you very much for the hint, I'm sure some ppl here will have a use for it!

Enjoy your wait.

Maybe you weren't treaded seriously BECAUSE of the level of "documentation" you provided (plus the fact that you were stating false information in the beginning)

The original authors can't breach licenses, they MAKE them.
+That you found someone that agrees with you doesn't automatically mean you're right.
And yes, we do realize you're doing this for extremist ideals and your ego, so that you want to be seen as hero - not gonna happen with the way you're trying to deliver your messages and concerns.

We do. But that doesn't mean that you'll stop spamming, right?

I didn't read the rest: TL;DR

Oh some further thoughts:

Since you love links to "documentation" so much:
Please read the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia article "license". They reflect actual laws in most countries on this planet.

Then read them again.
Then 10 times more.
Repeat that till you get those.

Although I'm pessimistic, maybe you finally manage to understand what a license actually is and why your wannabe-legal statements were pointless and bullcrap, still are and always will be, if the authors of the code want to distribute it under several different licenses.

Oh and your idealistic stuff.
We're aware those ideals exist.
We don't live by them and we don't intend to.
No matter how often you're gonna repeat yourself.
We don't tell you which ideals to live by either, so stop it.
It's impolite, insulting and taken to that level just plain SPAM.

Stop trying to limit OUR freedom, it's ridiculous.
(Referring to the freedom of choice for our players and the the authors' freedom to be able to decide under which terms they want give their work to specific audiences, in case you still don't get it. Well, probably you won't get it now either...)

My point is that the GNU-GPl was designed much with the same intent as creative commons. The goal of the license was not to secure any idea of 'author's rights;' but rather to give the work under these licenses to the public. This is why they are often referred to as copyleft instead of copyright as they turns copyright on its head.

I also didn't just find someone. I contacted the people who wrote the license and enforce it. If you had ceded the license to them, as some people do, they would be talking with you and or suing you for breech of license. So please don't belittle me as if I found some man off the street. Perhaps you should read the GNU-GPL and find out how that law really works; as you appear clueless.

And, to boot, I had never came across with lies or any type of disinformation. There was some confusion by some people about what I said (and I cleared it up many times but some of you keep throwing your own confusion in my face as if I did something wrong.)

Wow, very interesting that freedom is now seen as radical ideology. Nice touch for the irony factor.

My point is that you people don't understand the values or the laws of the license you put your own game under. It's clear by almost every word you write. Have you even listened to Richard Stallman (the writer of the license) or read any of his work at all?

It is clear that you people still want to act like you own the game and that it's not public property. I'm not trying to limit your freedom. I'm trying to get you to play by the rules of the very license you put your own work under. What is obvious is that you should have read it more clearly before you agreed to it.

The only reason the FSF isn't reprimanding/suing you is because of the technicality in copyright enforcement that says that you have to be the license holder to sue for breech of license.

I know it's a breech of license, so do the people in charge of writing and enforcing it. I asked them, and they told me it was. I even responded with that information.

It just seems such a shame that such a great game has this stain on it. The license holders of Hedgewars are fine with throwing freedom out the window if that means that they can get on apple products. It's a form of selling out. Not with money, but with values. And it's a shame.

... for copies that are given out under that license, obviously not for copies that aren't.

You still are, since you still don't understand what a license actually is.

It's not necessarily, but it can be lived as one.
That's the reason many people don't agree with Richard Stallman on many points.

Nonsense sentence since you still don't get what a license is.
The only rule the licensor has to obey in the GPL is to make the source-code available for copies distributed under the GPL.
We do that.
We even do that for copies distributed under non-GPL licenses. Ain't we nice?
All other rules in the GPL affect the licensee, as usual, since that's what a licenses are made for.

The problem is that the first sentence of the GPL is misleading for people that don't know what a license actually is (e.g. you) and that they don't know how to understand it under international applicable copyright law.

The iDevice port does not come with that notice. The code authors and copyright holder published it under a different license/the apple ToS.
Therefore there is no breach with the GPL, things are dandy, you don't have to worry.
We do, however, because we are super-nice, also distribute the iDevice port's source code under the GPL, so that people can compile and build their own binaries (which of course are then also under the GPL).
THOSE binaries, compiled by GPL licensees would be illegal to be put into the iDevice appstore, since those GPL versions would conflict with the apple ToS.

Yes. Of course. If you had understood what a license is and how it is applied then you would had understood how naturally logic that is.

You can't sue copyright holders that allow you using their product e.g. with no permission of reproduction just because they granted more rights to somebody else (e.g. using a different license).

*diabolical, echoing laughter* MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*cough*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now excuse me, I have to command my winged monkey servants to bring me little kids that I can cook and devour for breakfast.

PS: It's "breach", not "breech". Breech is something different ;D

PPS:

wait, so you prefer recommending a closed source game, whose source code is not public, which runs on a single platform and whose brand has been devoided of any value, instead of a gpl'd one?

Oo (to quote uncorr)

I was unclear in the sentence. My intention was that I have difficulty recommending Hedgewars. "Recommending this game" was in reference to "A Free Software Alternative" which was a reference to Hedgewars. Sometimes these things roll of the tongue better in spoken word than in text and I understand the confusion. But to spell everything out word for word makes for a vary long a wordy post.

I do not recommend Worms as it is not Free Software. Though, as stated, I did ask if they would put the game under Free Software. (Considering the Worms 2 engine is more than ten years old.)

While I do not agree with non-free software, at least now it makes sense what you have done. From my understanding, and I could be wrong on this point as I have not researched this angle fully, people can place their works under more than one license. So, yes, if the apple appstore version of Hedgewars is under a different license then it is not held to the same rules (nor does it have the same protections for freedom) as the GNU-GPL. Thus I will regard the apple appstore version as proprietary and treat it as such. (Free Software is more than just weather or not the source code is available. It also defines the freedoms of what people can or can not do with the software. Such as making and releasing modified versions.)

Out of curiosity, what license is the apple appstore Hedgewars under? I suppose I can also just go look.

Also, I get that a license regulates the use of (in this case) a program. It decides things such as whether or not people can copy a program and whether or not source code is available. Most licenses come at the angle of 'authors rights' which make the makers of the work basically it's owner. The GNU-GPL was designed to be the apposite of these ideas. It was for authors who do not want to own their software; but rather make it a public work that belongs to everyone so that everyone owns it and can contribute to it. This is why the GNU GPL is seen by many as revolutionary and by some as radical. It's basically the anti-copyright, or, copyleft. It's like the Magna Carta where the King signs away his powers to the people. To place a program under the GNU-GPL is to say, "I don't want to own this software as I believe software should not have owners. I want it to belong to everyone; not just the people making it."

Though, as noted, copyright does allow, as far as I can tell, multiple licenses for the same work. As such, the message becomes, "I don't want to own this software as I believe software should not have owners, while at the same time I want to own this software as I believe I am its owner. I want to to belong to everyone; not just the people making it. While, also, it does not belong to everyone but to the people making it." And, in your case, "We still want it to belong to the people so we still make the source code available and binaries from that code also belong to everyone. While, we're okay if apple's appstore binary doesn't belong to everyone."

Not illegal, as far as I can tell, just becomes a tad long winded and hypocritical in the area of the apple appstore. I understand why this was done the way it was done. I do, however, think it would have been an opportune time to make a statement against apple and perhaps cause some fuss and a change of mind. Or at least some decent converge of the issue.

And frankly I still don't get why people were so angry over this. If it was as clear as this then why not just say so? The personal attacks were very mean. :'(

I apologize on behalf of the Hedgewars DevTeam if during the discussion you were attacked personally and your feelings were hurt.

The US has REALLY wacky copyright laws.
DRM is employed, broken, and reused left and right.
It's total chaos.

LONGEST POSTS EVER!!!

lol

You people need to just calm down, its a great game so just play it and shut up.

You don't need to all over the forums.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't wake f13ticket up!

...