> The movement for free software traditionally draws a distinction between software and art. This means that only the software part of each game would need to be distributable, not the entire game.

Personally, I’m a big fan of this idea. I really like the way that games like Doom do things: the engine itself is FOSS, but in order to play Doom, you need DOOM.WAD which is proprietary and must be purchased. DOOM.WAD doesn’t contain any code (it only contains graphics, sounds, level geometry, etc.) so you don’t have to run any unfree software in order to play Doom.

However, there are some people in the free software movement that disagree with me. The Free Software Foundation maintains a wiki called the Free Software Directory. Here’s a quote from the Free Software Directory’s rules for what can and cannot be included in the Free Software Directory [1]:

> Edge Cases

> This is not static information. Policies about adding non-free code obviously don't change, however the way projects are licensed or the way they interact each other is definitely subject to change.

> […]

> • If software is freely licensed but is bundled with artwork that is not, do we consider the program to be free? From RMS "Images and sounds need to be free if they are essential parts of the software. But if they are just decoration, and easily replaced, then they do not have to be free." Sound and artwork fall into the category of essential for interactive games. Logos on otherwise utilitarian projects do not.

That being said, that same set of rules also says [2]:

> Free programs

> Software needs to meet the free software definition to be listed at the Free Software Directory as well as follow these guidelines and requirements for entries.

> […]

> • The software program itself should not package any program-data, art assets loaded by the program, or software which is under a nonfree license. If art or data is available for the game under a nonfree license but not packaged directly with it, that is a different matter and one we should be more flexible about.

Those two quotes seem like they were written by two different people who have opposite opinions on this topic, but IDK.

Anyway, my point is: I really like it when games do that, but it seems that at least some people in the free software movement disagree.

[1]: <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requi...>

[2]: <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requi...>