The state being largely the same is not true. There may be a few of the same variables at best, most everything else is completely different. You're only evaluating the limited scope of the minified code. Also in regards to the anti-lag algorithm. Should a one liner count?
Your description does not begin to give us credit where due! It does not mention the redesign effort and upgrading of outdated code we performed. Additionally it does not factor in our realtime ETH exchange backend or any of the visually obvious design changes that weve made.
To your point on FAQ (which since Daniel pointed out, we also updated), but is FAQ really the criteria on which we evaluate software copyright? To me, it is absurd that we are even talking about the FAQ.
I don't think you're acting fairly by taking commercial software, making a bunch of improvements
Fair to who? Us getting the license certainly does not benefit crash players. At best, it would give Daniel some pocket change. It does not seem fair to a startup to be forced to either pay for a license or Open Source their competitive edge (in a sea of commoditized v1 clones). Hence we are sticking to our guns.
Frankly its a shame that the only people who think it is unfair to use the open-source code are other game operators that have cloned v1 BaB (or in your case made BaB v1). Much like George RR Martin wouldnt be ecstatic at you downloading GOT, Im sure you and the other license holders arent ecstatic about us not buying it.
Still to come out here and publicly claim we are untrustworthy (even tho we never did any wrong to our players), seems more unfair to me. Saying things like this does not give me much optimism for your future and we are tarnishing our brand just seems like blatant attacks on our character, rather than our actions as game operators. Still youre entitled to your opinion. We will continue to build trust in our community one feature/one day at a time. Im sure consistency over time will benefit us!