This is why I’m always sad when I see a project opening as MIT instead of GPL.
The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code. Given that the list of folk who can compile for consoles is very limited, this would not be an existential burden for them.
Indeed, even if they targeted a common development platform, like a PC or Mac, they would still be able to offer lots of value, and easily sell copies if there was a market for that. The vast majority of players would happily pay $49 for a compiled version of the game rather than go to the effort of compiling themselves.
In other words, the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money - making money selling compiled GPL programs is not hard - assuming the program has some value to someone.
It absolutely would stop anyone from releasing it as proprietary software. You cannot have GPL'ed proprietary software. You can sell GPL code, you can use it in proprietary platforms, but by definition the software itself cannot be proprietary. If it's GPL'ed, other people can sell it, modify it, distribute it, and use it for their own purposes.
I get that, hence me saying "they would be obligated to release the source code." My point is that has little or no effect on the actual sales of the program (since the parent post was primarily about money.)
There are reasons to prefer GPL over MIT, and other reasons to prefer MIT over GPL, but money isn't one of them...
I don't think so, it was about making money through selling it as proprietary software.
> The only difference is that they would be obligated to release the source code.
If they release the source code it's not proprietary software anymore - by definition - and GPL achieved its goal.
> the GPL and MIT licenses are orthogonal to making money
The GPL allows selling modified (FOSS) versions with extended contents e.g. artwork, music.
But it also allows the original author to do so without succumbing to the competition from companies that leverage their dominant market position.
With MIT freeloaders win.
i'd say MIT license wouldn't impact the sales outcome at all.
Upon request, and it just can't be less accessible than the binaries. You can charge for the source - just not more than what the binaries cost.
Is it just GPL, or strong copyleft in general?
Do you intend to release modified versions without releasing corresponding source code?
Why should an author want to provide you with the source code, just so you can deny that privilege to others?
I don't know why an author should. I'm not spending any time agonizing over what they should be doing. I don't understand why you threw that second half of the sentence in there as if the two are necessarily linked.
Counterpoint, many companies won't allow GPL software even if eventually it'd be open sourced again.
I personally wouldn't mind a for sale version of this game updated to run on my phone. Even if it's 15$ or so. Without a profit motive the number of people who would bother to continue development is much lower.
Your also free to fork it , make the ultimate version and GPL it