>>773 >If you made a vidya license for your game or another person's, what would its terms be GNU GPL, anything else is a cuck license where you work for free, only to have a company swoop in, repackage your code and sell it as proprietary. With that said, cuck licenses are of for stuff I don't really care about. Ideally anything without a license would be fair game, but with how copyright works I have to throw in the MIT license or something like that. >Would it be freeware, open source, closed source, etc.? You can make a game Free as in Freedom or Open Source and still charge money for it. That's how Doom works, the engine is free, but you have to pay for the actual game assets. I think that's the best model if you want to make money, everyone is happy and even Stallman approves.

>>775 >That's how Doom works, the engine is free, but you have to pay for the actual game assets. Sounds reasonable to me. I'll keep that in my head if I ever finish a game decent enough to sell.

>>773 >If you made a vidya license for your game or another person's, what would its terms be? I'd make a license that is sort of like copyleft, but funnier. It'd allow anyone to use the contents in any way they want for free, even monetizing it or using it in proprietary software, unless they take advantage of intellectual property protections (like filing a DMCA takedown or suing someone for copyright infringement), then they have to pay the licenser 20% of their gross profits from the time they started using your IP as royalties.