We will do this with the next release, once we have the rights to use glibc again. At the moment, we cannot distribute the game in its current form.
y u no pin dis on top of the forum 
This topic is now pinned. It will appear at the top of its category until it is either unpinned by a moderator, or the Clear Pin button is pressed.
More waiting for the Linux peopleā¦ I feel pity for them because they have to wait a long time.
UPDATE: The FSF has reinstated our rights to use glibc.
4 Likes
That is great news. Now that the āunforeseen circumstancesā (I guess that was in regard to this licensing issue) are fixed when will the updated linux version be on Steam?
Iām glad to hear this, now I hope you will upload the Linux version on Steam soon.
Excellent news glad to see itās sorted! 
Once I see it get an updated Linux release/Steam release I will pick up a copy myself finally. Looking forward to playing 
Again - you can not license a LGPL software simply by using / dynamically linking it. You must copy, distribute or modify it to do so (statically linking, or copying glib.so). Dynamically linking does not not copy the library to your software.
Anyway, I hope to see game for linux on Steam soon (with or without the license) 
Happy to wait, thank you for bringing the game to Linux.
This really should get included in the game as a random event
Feel like an ass right now. I thought the delay was more of a āLinux users are not a priorityā kinda thing. Iām so, so terribly sorry you guys. The FSF can seem like the Inquisition, at times. They mean well, though, so I hope this doesnāt make the whole Linux experience unfortunate for you devs.
If you need anything from your Linux fan base, let us know. Weāre already recommending this game to our Linux and non-Linux friends, but know that weāre here to support your efforts. Again, so sorry for my mistrust. 
3 Likes
Donāt feel bad.
The timeline doesnāt add up. There has been no release with linux support since the first of July, but the license was only revoked in September. Granted, the first letter from the FSF was a month earlier, but thatās only August.
Plus, thereās no reason not to keep maintaining the version even with a revoked license, as that license is only needed for released software. A quick google search tells you what you need to do to be in compliance (and even common sense dictates that it canāt be that hard ā look at all the other proprietary software on linux systems).
2 Likes
According to the FSF, this is not true. It seems that the logic you outlined is true for GPL licensed libraries but not the ones licensed under L-GPL. At least thatās what the FSF said.
Linux is all I use in my life, no Windows at all, and having a Linux version of this game is what attracted it to me (I donāt even use Wine).
I know the feeling of being contacted regarding legal infringements. I had this with an Android app developed by me, and unfortunately I wasnāt directly contacted by the plaintiff before he actually went straight to Google, who wipe my app out of existence.
Hopefully you will never go through that again.
Keep up the good work!
So I was wondering if I should wait for the Linux version to buy the game since I really would rather play it on Linux. However, I have a Windows box just for gaming those stubborn devs that donāt want to write for Linux. Should I hold off or will my Windows Steam purchase load on my Linux Steam engine after the new release? I love to support the Linux software, but donāt like double-paying.
-Tobeus
EDIT:
Nevermind, I just found another post that addresses this question. It looks like I should purchase the game through the store page in order to make sure I get the Linux version later.
I agree, the FSF has put in a lot of work such that it should be clear how to comply with GPLv3. Maybe thereās some hesitation on Greenheart Gamesā part because they havenāt decided whether GPLv3 is right for them.
I canāt imagine Greenheart are going to license the whole game as GPL - this isnāt a hobby project.
I assume that FSF were asserting that the use of glibc doesnāt meet the full exception of Section 3 LGPL (v3), I guess because some inline functions incorporated are over 10 lines of code long or something, and therefore notices and copies of the license are needed.
Ultimately, I suspect it arises from using node-webkit āout of the boxā without knowing this means including a notice, as I suspect itās node-webkit that does the linking. It may be that the node-webkit devs donāt even know that, or didnāt include it in documentation.
Personally, I think itās a bit of a trap if developers of an LGPL library include inline functions longer than 10 lines in the header files, because itās hard for a developer to manually check the whole thing.
The issue was never with the GPL. We know enough about licensing to know that you should stay away as far as possible from anything licensed under the GPL.
The issue is that the L-GPL, while being more open for commercial use has a clause that requires you to distribute a license to it even when you just dynamically link to it (as we did). From discussions, hardly anyone knows about this - Iām surprised that not more software gets flagged.
Anyway, we are getting close to a linux release now. Just a few technical tests outstanding.
Their own FAQ says dynamically linking doesnāt require any action - unless the headers used in so doing include certain things. If the glibc headers do, itās a bit weird.