I had a little chat with a colleague after the business part this afternoon. Among other things, about software and how expectations have changed here.
Specifically, we also talked about the MEGA65 and the game "Tristam Island", which can be bought for around 4 USD.
My colleague refuses to buy the game on principle, because he understands the MEGA65 as "open source" and he expects that from the software too. So available for free and with source code.
I was a little amazed when I heard that. I can't understand that at all.
Just because the MEGA65 project is open source doesn't mean that you have to get everything for free (the hardware also costs money and not a little) and then you get also the source code freely available.
In any case, I have no problem if someone wants money for his software and I can also understand if someone does not release the source code.
It is still my decision whether and what I want to buy and it is also the decision of the author whether he wants some money and whether he releases his source code or not. There should be no compulsion behind it, not on both sides.
I think I am not alone here with my view? Or do you expect that all software for the MEGA65 "must" be without charge and with free code?
That's indeed a strange view. Linux is free and open source (but surely, we must be careful what "Linux" means, usually only the kernel, or we refer for a Linux distribution more, often mentioned as "GNU/Linux" since many tools/components - other than kernel - is from the GNU project ... though those components are open source as well), but surely there are commercial software for it, you must pay for, and no source code at all for them. In fact, leaving open for commercial titles are important since there can be some bigger projects some people want to have money for. Now the choice: not to allow them, and we will miss those, or have them (but not free) so everybody can decide at least it worth to pay for, or not. I think the second is better. The "platform" being open source it's just the "platform", not the things other people writes for. But as it's said, sure, your colleague can decide if he wants to pay or not for a given a software, there is no problem here. The problem more, if somebody misunderstand things and feels "fooled" that it's a trap: "but it was said it's fully open source, now it's a trap, that I must pay for some software still, after I thought it's completely free and I jumped in the project?".
In fact, something "being open source" does not mean too much for the 99% of the people, since they have no value on having the source, if they don't know what to do with the source code Imagine how much people would use Linux, if they have only source code, and not actual builds, distributions etc (which installers, binaries, packages ...). Also, worth to mention, there are software which are open source, still not free, technically.
Honestly the logic of your colleague it's like when you're informed there is a free-to-use road built, and then he cries that he needs to BUY a car also the the fuel, it's not open at all ... Surely the software case of this story is still better since there are "free cars" (ie software) to use on the platform, just not all of them are that.