So it looks like you have to pay $11.50 a month to view the source code, which means it's obviously not open source. However, from a quick search the only mention of open source related to this game is that first sentence on the steam page - so maybe that's a mistake?
Can somebody with connections to either Godot or Blender Studio ask for clarification about this?
From what I understand, open source has no requirement to distribute the source for free, so long as the source can be freely distributed afterwards. Even GPL allows for fees. Open source is about freedom and not getting things for free.
GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireA...
> 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.
You cannot charge extra for distributing source code in this way under the GPLv3 (or any version of the GPL, for that matter -- there is a carve-out for physical distribution that lets you charge for shipping, but that doesn't apply here). Section 6(d) explicitly says this:
> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. [emphasis added]
That bit in the FAQ is describing the situation where the software binaries are being sold for a fee -- in that case, the GPL only requires you to provide the source code (for no additional fee) to the customers that bought the software from you. In fact, is the case in general that the GPL only requires you to provide source code to the same people you gave binary copies to -- the FAQ is just clarifying that that GPL does not require you to publish source code in public (the FSF considers such licenses to be non-free). This game is available for free to the general public, so this situation (and the text from the FAQ) do not apply -- they need to provide the source code to everyone that they distribute the binaries to.
The need to disallow charging extra for source code is obvious -- if distributors were allowed to charge for source code, they could fork a GPL project and then charge $1B for the source code, making the code effectively proprietary.
> This game is available for free to the general public, so this situation (and the text from the FAQ) do not apply -- they need to provide the source code to everyone that they distribute the binaries to.
They don't need to do anything the GPL says if they're the sole copyright owners. People are bound by the GPL because copyright law normally prevents them from distributing works without the author's permission, and the GPL is the only thing that allows them to do that.
The GPL itself even points this out explicitly in section 9:
> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. [...] However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
Another way to look at it is this: the only people able to take them to court for violating the GPL are themselves.
I am aware of that, and commented something similar in a sister thread. I was responding specifically to their claim that charging extra for source code is not in violation of the GPLv3, and that isn't true.
But yes, sole copyright holders can dual-license their code as proprietary or GPLv3, or just ignore the provisions of the GPLv3 for the same reasons you outlined. That being said, the binaries on the website are effectively under a proprietary license -- you or I are not free to redistribute them without first paying to get a copy of the source code.
Well, here Blender Studio is distributing the game's binaries for free while charging money to access the source code, and the GPL does prohibit doing that. And Dogwalk's Itch.io page claims that the code is GPL-licensed...
But if Blender Studio owns the copyright to all the GPL-licensed code in Dogwalk, they're free to distribute (or not distribute) it however they want. It does have the interesting consequence that people who don't have access to the open-source "production files" release probably can't redistribute the free-as-in-beer binaries without violating the GPL. Which is not the case for Blender Studio's films.
> If I distribute GPLed software for a fee
Be aware of the difference between "software" and "source code". You can charge for people to use the app/program/website, but that doesn't mean you can charge for access to the source code and still call it open source.
You can't charge extra for GPL source code after distributing the software, but you can definitely restrict source access to the customers you sold the software to, although they can then redistribute it anyway.
If Blender Studio owns the copyright they can distribute it however they want though, presumably their free build isn't GPL; it just doesn't fit the spirit.
Blender Studio calls a lot of their projects "open source" because, once you do pay the monthly fee, you receive the source files under an open-source/Creative Commons license that allows you to freely use and redistribute them. (They mostly do movie projects, where the source files are called "production files". It makes a little more sense in that context.)