License it under the GPL, upload code and all build files (including WIP files for the Linux version) to Github, and I'll donate.
I understand the desire to generate income from it at some point, but then why are you asking people to blindly donate $80K to help you build a potential business model?
All that said, it's a fantastic program, and I wish the author much success in the future. A marriage of this and KSP would be like some sort of dream scenario :)
But seriously, this isn't selling software. Strangely, if this were like Kerbal Space Program, and the dev were offering to SELL it for $40, $50, $60 with the promise that that price includes upgrades up to a certain version (1.0 + minor releases in the cycle?) I'd probably do that.
I am not, however, going to donate money to a project that literally states in the license that their software is a trade secret. What is this, 1980?
I'd much, much rather code be a "trade secret" than a patent. It's how closed source should work.
It feels like you're arguing semantics - it says "trade secret" so you're put off. If it didn't say anything and was just closed source... would you care as much?
Nothing in this world requires you to like or participate in anything else - you don't have to donate or participate. But the level of entitlement is off the charts.
These are not the only two options. If I understood it right, the programmer is asking for money to develop something that will be available for download for free, but whose source code would be secret.
As a programmer myself (who writes free-as-in-speech software), the source code is the most relevant artifact and the only one that interests me. I would not sponsor the development of a project where the only deliverable is an opaque binary executable where other development models are possible.
This space engine software runs on 0 of my computers, with source and the game dev experience I have I might change that. With the binaries provided I cannot change that. This software may as well from a naive self concerned viewpoint.
So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that? WTF.
No. I can't. It does not support my computing platform. Neither of them, by the way.
> Why shouldn't the author solicit donations for the Awesome Thing that he's making available?
There is no reason why he should not solicit donations and it is, I agree, an Amazing Thing. It is, however, only partially available.
> So he might recycle some of these donations into making a living out of his technology - is there something wrong with that?
What would change if the source code were licensed under GPL? The download is free-as-in-beer, so others making if available for download would change nothing. Others could help adding features and helping development at a faster pace. If someone else took over the burden to port it to another platform (and, say, make me happy), the project would be able to attract more funding.
The only possible downside is if a fork gained more traction than the root project and started attracting more funding. Still, any improvements would flow upstream back to his project thanks to the wonders of the GPL.
I would understand resistance were he charging for the download. In that case, the GPL wouldn't help at all. Also, he can copyright any art that's part of the final product (much like Red Hat copyrights their red hats) and that would prevent any third party from building a final product exactly like his. If the art added sufficient value (unlike all those little red hats) there would be no fork like CentOS.
Think it through. He's actually hurting himself by keeping it closed.
Perhaps he wants to license his technology to a commercial publisher, and estimates that keeping the codebase private is a safer commercial decision than putting it out under the GPL or trying to patent it.
I will not donate money to fund the development of proprietary technology that does not run on my computer, even though I would donate money to fund the development of a free technology that does not run on my computer just because it's cool.
(1) People who make things (of any kind) publicly available are often not clear on how the public perceives them. It can be helpful to let them know.
(2) This fellow has obviously put a lot of work into the program. But there are limits on how far development by one person, in their spare time, is likely to go. There are two reasonably sustainable development models: establish a clear funding stream by charging for the product, or release the source code and do open development. This fellow is doing neither. If people admire this work, and want it to continue to be developed, then they have an incentive to encourage the original developer to switch to a more sustainable model.
and ...
(3) Is there anything wrong with offering a trade? "I'd like it if you did X. If you do, then I'll give you money."
In fact, I think this project, being closed, is a disservice to the craft of software creation. It's great work and, yet, all we can see is its results rendered on a screen. It's also limited to a single operating system and CPU architecture. Opening it up would enrich other groups and allow it to be enriched by them.
I place no unreasonable condition on my donation. In fact, it's my donation and no legally allowed condition should be deemed unreasonable.
TIL that Dominos delivers in Brazil.
Question: How common is it? I.e., do huge numbers of people in Brazil order delivery pizzas, or is it more of a niche thing?
"If you do X, then I'll do Y."
"I absolutely refuse to do Y, unless you do X exactly the way I want it done."
The above two are making essentially the same statement. The difference is one of attitude. And the attitude behind a short online text message, is something very easy to misinterpret -- or so recent history suggests, IMHO.
There's an example of doing a closed-codebase project for money right.
MIT licence is pretty popular here for exactly that reason.
You may have avoided downvotes if you'd couched your argument in terms of licences. Perhaps.
There is a master's or doctoral thesis in there somewhere waiting to be extracted...