> The license of our sources is a bit muddled. We'll try to clear that up asap. The full production repository is CC-BY since it mostly includes the original art assets. The source code of the game is GPLv3 since since [sic] that makes more sense for the code base of the project.
They just aren't distributing the source for free, it seems, but you are free to redistribute it however you'd like.
Personally, if I was one of the people that bought the source code, I would just upload it on GitHub since you have the right to do so.
This changes, of course, if they are using any third-party GPLv3'ed code - because then they become a redistributor of that code in which case clause 6(d) applies and they must redistribute that code free of charge.
I still don't agree that this is in the spirit of the GPLv3. In my view, the binaries at least are under a proprietary license.
Hopefully, someone will do this. It makes me wonder why they bother to charge for the download when this is an option. I guess they think they can distribute it in a more 'friendly' and 'official' manner than a GitHub link, and that some people will pay a premium for that.
That thing, which they call Dogwalk, and are distributing for free, is clearly not open source.
The other thing, which they probably also call dogwalk, and they'll give you if you pay them presumably is open source (or maybe the more accurate term is "free software" since the source isn't publicly available - i.e. open), but that doesn't make the download on the page linked by HN open source.
Yes, that was my point. I will know the license when I see it in the distributed code :)
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
> If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
> No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
Of course, if they are the sole copyright holder, they can dual-license things under a GPL and proprietary license (which is effectively what they are doing here -- the DogWalk binaries available from the linked page are not GPLv3 binaries because they are not following the GPLv3 requirements). But this situation is absolutely not permitted under the GPLv3. Otherwise a company could fork a GPL'd project and just avoid releasing GPL'd source code by charging $1B for the source code.
[1]: https://studio.blender.org/projects/dogwalk/gallery/?asset=8...