>>54934280
yeh, but you couldn't rename a few variables and claim you wrote ableton, since the author has it licensed

free software doesn't work

video games would all be trash under the free software model

>>54934280
>Free Software
>You have to solve a riddle & an enigma before it works properly instead of just paying for a working product

no thanks

>>54934332
>implying they arent trash now

It actually works pretty well for video games. Generally the approach for those is to leave the engine and code licensed under a floss license and keep the rights to assets like music and textures.

>>54934280
Most free software works under donations anyways, and once you have it licensed like >>54934324 said, you would know who to donate to if you want to support the product.

>>54934332
Video Games don't need to be libre to be trash, just take a look at any modern game being made

>>54934280
as long as stallman's endgame isn't to get the government to impose his mandate then he's harmless. open source is good because it's the only way to know whether or not software has surveillance software included like so many do nowadays. but having the government tell software developers they don't have a right to keep their work proprietary is a worse form of tyranny than non-free software

To borrow a horrible business term, it changes what software means. In a closed source ecosystem, software is a product. In an open one, it becomes "software as a service."

So you have situations where someone will adopt a software package that does 95% of the work you want. You then can choose to pay, either internally through work-hours or externally directly to the original author, to add in the missing functionality. An example may be language support for Portuguese because of the Brazilian government's adoption of it, Linux driver support by hardware manufacturers, or the various corporations that dedicate developers to things like SQL or those scientific research applications that I forget the name of.

The licence also only covers what it's specifically applied to. Non-code stuff like the name, artwork, audio/video samples, user interface could still be protected. Those open source game engines are a good example, as was the FireFox/IceWeasel situation.

>>54934525
Developers should be free to release binaries without corresponding source code, but the government should not empower them to sue their users for redistributing those binaries.

>>54934280
>MUH DEVELOPERs!

GPL is meant to public domain/common standard from abuse/loophole. It's meant to stop copyright bullshit like Disney used to use for their movies.

Free software is a stupid communist meme.

>>54934280
>change... Ableton however they want
but they'd have to share the changes if they sell (and dsitribute, I think) the software