[pjmlp]

Governance alone doesn't help, if there isn't a way to pay the bills.

It was cool to be a UNIX/FOSS zealot during the late 90's while still getting monetary support.

Writing M$ on the email signature and such.

Eventually I had to find a way to pay my bills.

[raxxorraxor]

In the current market you reliably can do both. Nobody in software can deny the importance of open source software, if only for learning or training. Without FOSS, there would only be stagnation.

You can even develop commercial software and still support FOSS. This isn't some think the kids of the 90s do. Most new open source projects are created by younger developers.

[pjmlp]

Try to make a living from open source desktop software, or open source games.

Younger developers are re-discovering public domain and shareware, while rebranding them as open core.

[pxc]

> Try to make a living from [...] open source games.

To me, many of the elements of political interest with free software in general don't really come into play with games (although some incidental issues, like privacy concerns, certainly do come into play in practice). Part of what makes software freedom urgent where it matters most is a very material dependency on software— it matters most when we depend on that software to make our livings, or to access medical care, or to access education. The stakes are lower for games, and I imagine that many people who care deeply about free software are still comfortable buying and running proprietary games. I know I am.

I don't think there's a serious problem with making/selling proprietary games, either, even if you're generally committed to free software.