You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in
entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the
experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the artist.
Now you take this interactive experience and instead of simply watching it,
you have interaction and it has a software element to it. Now you feel that
this needs to be in the same category as Python debug tools when it really
isn't. Like the previously mentioned movie or music, it is meant to be
consumed and not a tool to create software.
If I were to develop software with Python, do you think that I would want the
source code to the language itself and compilers if needed? Absolutely. If I
am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I really need to look at
the source code files as a consumer? No, I would be more interested in the
interactive experience.
On a final note, most of the software created under a free software
compatible license is totally crap and amateur and usually based off of a 10
year old engine like Quake 3. That is because creating games needs a budget
and it costs real money (like a movie) to create a top notch game. Putting
aside donations and Kickstarter campaigns, you don't create a Zelda or
Bioshock level game as a community project.
You know why? Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and
developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community project
does not. How is he going to market the thing? Richard Stallman is a running
joke with most people and his rants get ignored when he starts attacking game
companies. Heck, read these Ars Technia comments to get people's views on
RMS. These are real people and not FSF cultists.
