Username or EmailPassword
That's funny. No offense, but it seems that _you_ are the one who doesn't understand "software freedom" or the GPL. Some of the "freedoms" in the GPL require certain responsibilities from those modifying the code (emphasis is mine):
"Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations."
The author of the hacked version of Ion3 was clearly acting irresponsibly by failing to distinguish his version from the original. This would also seem to qualify as a violation of the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer.
Thanks, having limited familiarity with the LGPL, that really helps clear things up for me. Now, when I read the following, it makes a lot more sense:
"I would contend that there is no trademark violation, as permission for minor modifications to the source of Ion3 is implied by distributing the source."
And if what someone claimed here is true, that the hacked version was basically distributed, modified, Ion3 code with instructions to compile, then I would agree that they are within the terms of the original license. Even so, I still respect Tuomov for his efforts with Ion3 and wish him all the best. No sense in getting all bitter and bent out over the incident.