I am strongly against GPLv3 since it only has negatives, and not a single positive reason to use it.
This is false, as me and other people have said in other messages. Whether you pretend to be that the differences are only negatives and not positives is your point of view, not an universal truth.
In fact, if one likes the original GPL (and the side that GPL chooses: users' freedom), GPLv3 has several objective advantages, since it goes further into trying to make sure to protect user freedom, even by sophisticate ways that some people/companies use to subvert it (the aforementioned TiVO, or software patents).
GPLv3 will only hurt the project in the long run, considering its incompatibility with most popular platforms
If this was true, you'd think that Battle of Wesnoth for iPhones would be doing very well, right? Maybe not so ([1] and [2]). It seems that there are no releases for more than 1 year and a half, and in fact it lived actively for less than 6 months, apparently.
[1]
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35395&p=511806&hilit=iphone#p511806[2]
http://wesnoth.repositoryhosting.com/trac/wesnoth_wesnoth/Now, I don't think bad about Sumwars, but I would contend that Wesnoth is more close to what people considers complete and polished game, with many years of experince and a strong community of users and developers. And they have a couple more contributors/workforce than Sumwars, also [
http://wiki.wesnoth.org/Credits ]. If they [seem to have] have abandoned the iPhone path, I would be more cautious than you when saying that by using GPL license (or GPLv3) in particular Sumwars is getting hurt and missing many opportunities.
And it is well known that with this move to try to get Wesnoth into iphones, they created a fracture in the community [
http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/ ], so overall was probably more harmful than good.
So sorry if I offend you again, but this assertion of yours is quite stupid and not substantiated in anything other than your prejudice towards the GPL license.
[...] and the fact more and more developers are understandably wanting to avoid it because of the fact you have to release changes even if you don't plan on distributing the changed binary.
This is simply false. You can modify GPL software and not publish it, as long as you don't distribute it, it's one of the basic facts being there since the beginning:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublicI thought that you would be better informed about this issue... the fact that you don't understand this vital part of the license while you say to oppose it fiercely, it's quite amusing.
The only reason for using GPLv3 is for political reasons.
All my contributions are under the BSD license which is compatible with the GPL, so none would need to be rewritten (another advantage of a less restrictive license).
I would expect that 2000+ years after the greek philosophers, we would be already be settled in the notion that everything that humans do is political, in one way or another [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z?on_politikon ].
Your choice to not GPL is also quite political, too. Saying that BSD license is "less restrictive" in the sense of not restricting what developers or companies can do with the product; but permitting them to kill the product and thus restricting freedoms and options in users.
And apart from that, many times products with "more restrictive" licenses win, like Linux with GPL and BSD with their license, as explained many times by Linus Torvalds linking the success of it's pet project
because of (not
in spite of) being GPL and not any other license. In fact, the whole history of failed Unix systems before Linux (and GNU) is a mixed history of "too permissive" licenses and companies short-sightingly wanting to make big bucks quick, and killing the product early.
Executive summary: If you (plural: trapdoor or others) want BSD, that's your choice, but don't pretend to treat people as fools and put the burden on people who did an informed choice when choosing to contribute to this project -- like I did. Had this project be licensed under BSD I wouldn't have contributed to it, and if it would be GPLv2 only (and not GPLv3), maybe not either. And if you are so concerned about the badness of the GPLv3 license, put your money where your mouth is and rewrite my contributions. They are not that many, really.
But this said, I am quite pissed off that I've been the only one who, after waiting for a long time to see if somebody else did, finally got to implemente installing with "make install" in a more-or-less sensible way (even if some of you are still unsatisfied), including conditional compilation of enet/tinyxml; and I put very serious effort in trying to widen the channel of distribution of Sumwars by creating Debian/Ubuntu packages. And lastly, it's seems that I am the only one who takes seriously the problem of licensing (instead of just spitting prejudices in a forum) when it comes to real and current issues, like with the non-commercially-distributable fonts which could potentially get Sumwars into some trouble -- that everybody ignored until now, and continues to ignore the last bit (Commonwealth font).
So that's it, I'm quite tired of all of this. Get serious, folks.