I don't think this is true. The prestige and publicity gained from being the group to beat the challenge should be sufficient incentive.

No argument here!

With regard to the Digital Economy Act 2010:

The Lib Dems promissed to repeal it if elected.

The Tories said that if they were elected, they would drop any "flawed" legislation. Shortly after, Cameron said that "rejecting the Bill then or reconsidering the entire piece of legislation now would be an unacceptable set-back for the important measures it contains."

After the election, the LibDem-Conservative coalition released the Great Repeal Bill to undo some of the over-legislating of the Labour party. Sadly, the Digital Economy Act wasn't on the list.

I proposed something to Google that would certainly help with this issue. But they seemed more interested in bending over for the app. developers.

All configuration systems will take some time. All you are saying is that the autotools could be more optimal, which is hardly a "new problem that autotools creates".

And as for checking for strcpy() and then failing at link-time from a missing dynamic library symbol, the developer can check for dynamic library versions during the configuration. Short of having the configuration system parse the whole source code (in any language!), I don't see how else it can know what symbols it would need to check for anyway - this can only really be resolved at link-time.

To make this perfectly clear – the game is being reimplemented from scratch; all they share is a name

Isn't this one of the main bones of contention though? The www.nexuiz.com URL no longer takes you to the GPL project it used to, it displays a page about Illfonic's new console game and there's a tiny link in the corner of the page that takes you to the original project page!

Couldn't they have used a different name for what is, essentially, a different game?

Yes, there is potential that the code could get locked up in a proprietary stack [...] but as long as it was released under BSD it will forever be open to be used as USERS see fit.

Whaa!? That doesn't make sense man!

Your entire post has the dank smell of someone who has really missed the point of the GPL.

The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that source code remains the property of the community. It is there to ensure that if any businesses/organisations want to use the code, they must contribute their changes back to the community from which they took the code in the first place. You complain that the GPL restricts you, as a user, but the reality is this: the *only* thing the GPL restricts is your ability to restrict *other* user's use of the source code. The GPL is about creating community-owned source code.