There seems to be some confusion going on again.
"Or maybe its free software but has pay for assets."
Here you're again confusing libre and gratis. So for this purpose I'll try to
say libre. Saying "but has pay for assets" tells me nothing of that license
of those assets. Someone can pay for libre assets but also for proprietary
assets. Is it libre? Is it proprietary? You don't say and I can't really
answer vague questions.
It happens again when you say "the developer doesn't immediately offer the
source code." Why aren't they? Is it because they're witholding it and it's
not available at all? A game without source code is proprietary, as I'm sure
you know.
Or is it the case that it really is available, but just costs $1? In that
case I wouldn't describe it as "the developer doesn't immediately offer the
source code."
Not knowing the specifics makes it hard to answer but I shall take a stab in
the dark.
If it's the case where the source code is absolutely withheld like on a
delayed release ("buy the game and get source code in 6 months for $1"), then
I would not be okay with that because it is proprietary until the source code
is available to those that are getting the game.
If it's the case that the source code is available at the same time as the
game but for an extra dollar then that could be okay but only conditionally
because it seems to becoming a slippery slope. $1 is not much but letting
someone charge one amount for the binary and then another amount for the
source code potentially opens a loop hole where someone could charge $60 for
the game and then one million dollars for the source code and then no one
could afford to get it. The game would in truth be proprietary since no one
could afford the source code. (See "High or low fees, and the GNU GPL" from
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html.)
"...it is specific to one purpose (art for that one game) and is for
entertainment purposes."
Not necessarily. Things under a libre license can be re-used. Even for uses
and purposes that the original developer never thought of, so this logic
can't really apply to libre things. onpon4 is re-using stuff in reTux for
example.
"I'm just trying think of various methods of how someone can feel comfortable
developing freedom friendly games without having to rely on panhandling
(crowd funding) for the duration of the development and deployment."
Panhandling and crowdfunding are not the same thing. If it helps, think of
crowdfunding as being similar to placing a pre-order but just with with
different levels and amounts. Someone pays $60 and they'll get a copy of the
same when it's done. If they a larger sum then they could get a copy of the
game and some other perk.
I understand that a similar thing is going on with the sequel to Destiny.
Pre-order now and get come bonuses:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/all-the-destiny-the-taken-king-preorder-bonuses-an/1100-6429170/
What they're doing here is exactly the same as what is commonly seen in
crowdfunding campaigns: Different amounts get you different things:
Normal Edition -- $40
Legendary Edition -- $60
Digital Collector's Edition -- $80
Are they panhandling? Of course not. Panhandling and crowdfunding are not the
same thing.
Using copyright to restrict people is commonly done under the guise of "we
need to restrict people in order to be able to pay for the development." But,
in the cases of crowdfunding (aka pre-ordering) where all of that money's
obtained upfront, what's the argument to be made for continuing to restrict
people after all of that money's been raised? There really isn't one because
their one argument's been nullifed by raising the money in advance and yet
people do it all the time.
