Pretty much all of it. I don't know what a good business model for a FOSS game would be. Probably the same one that the TV studios use: provide a partial implementation (a pilot) for free and charge people for you to finish it. Once you've got enough funding, finish the game and release it. TV studios use channels as middle men in this situation, but there's no reason that it wouldn't work without the middle men.

The vast majority of software companies sell Free Software. Free Software just means that the person receiving the code has a set of rights to use, modify, and redistribute it, which is the case for most bespoke software, which is what most software companies (and, indeed, most software developers) sell.

It is difficult trying to combine selling commodity off the shelf (COTS) software with Free Software, but fortunately for 'FOSS Shills' COTS software has never been more than about 10% of the total software market.

Forking does that, because the GPL doesn't require that you contribute your changes back only forwards: you must give the code to the people you give binaries to, nothing more. It's easy to fork a project, make some structural changes, and then release your version that has all of the code that isn't necessary for your use removed and other things that are annoying for anyone who doesn't have access to the rest of your system added. The code is still available, but the cost of merging changes back upstream is often greater than the cost of rewriting them from scratch.

This is fine according to RMS, because the GPL is not meant to protect the authors of the original code, it's meant to protect the users who receive products based on it.

I know you hate IE as I hated it so much that I used ftp to download firefox back in the day as not to corrupt my cpu with such filth!

but IE 9 and IE 10 have supperior smooth scroll and hardware acceleration. My Galaxy 4 is smooth and Chrome and FF can't match it due to the inferior XP support!

IE is smooth when I hit up and down on the arrow keys thanks to using directx11.

No I am not a MS fanboy but just stating the obvious. I welcome Chrome and FF leaving XP behind and using directX11 for win64 to catch up. IE really is ahead for multimedia heavy sites.

Do you have any idea how fast a modern computer is?

I have a nice gpu not utilizing and aero is nice because it frees the cpu and speeds the cpu up as the GPU can take care of its tasks. This is not 1993 anymore

Aero has snap and aero peak.

I use it everyday at work and like to use my GPU for seeing all the dozens of apps opened without switching to take a peak

METRO (for me as opinions are subjective) issues are because you can't use the Windows 7 style features of managing more than one file and app multitasking together are due to the fact you can't have:
1. More than one applet on the screen
2. No taskbar for multiple apps
3. a Cell phone UI and desktop trying to co-exist
4. inferior instant search. Windows 8 apologist laugh at Windows 7 users saying they can now search for files by hitting the Windows Key!! Well duh. I have been doing that since Windows Vista folks. Trust me you used 7 like XP beforehand is the problem :-)
5. Crappy browser.

Windows 8.1 addresses more than one Window open Yeah
Windows 8.1 addresses the crappy browser issue. IE 11 tells Apache to send Firefox (gecko) versions of docs as webmasters who hate IE assume everyone must use IE 6 still! So they feed broken HTML to modern versions of IE UGH. Idiots some of us are at work and do not have a choice, yet have left IE 6 in 2011. Even IE 8 is old now.

Windows 8.1 tries to bridge the gap between desktop and metro furhter. -EG. When you click the start button the same background pops up.

So, Windows 8.1 is an improvement.

My take is for me to leave WIndows 7 I must have better instant search and have the task bar and AERO enabled for me to stack apps. Yes, I will upgrade afterwards if this is met. I know cutting edge 32-bit graphics are out of style according to the fanbois at www.neowin.net and how EGA 4 color is the new in that is modern now, but if Windows 9 fixes this I will switch.

Folks Windows Mobile wont take over at 4% marketshare. We need a non webit browser for the phone and is worth the switch to me. I will not stikc with old because I hate change, rather the old is mature and works compared to the new.

Metro can work if more apps worked and if we had a gui with a taskbar for Mobile apps with Aero (yes good graphics are not obsolete while EGA 1989 graphics are in) it can be used with desktop and a mouse.

I frankly dont know know where you stand? Statcounter shows its death accelerating. XP in my mind is like IE 6. Different era and on its way out. In 2011 when IE 9 came out yes it was debatable as XP loyalists were huge then. Ms is heading the direcrion though Metro is poorly executed. IE is growimg up

Oh cry me a river.

I work for a dirt cheap client. Even we have been moving off XP for a year now. That number is rapidly declining and non biased sites like g.statcounter show XP equal to MacOSX in the US. Only china uses it as 97% is all pirated and Windows 7 is harder to steal it. By 2014 it will be single digit marketshare in the western world.

Fud

I have firefox esr 17 which just came out. Not even e year old. 2 years ago it was Firefox 4

With rapid releasing the new IE 6 is webkit. MS is being conservative as it does not want another box model scandal for 10 years as developers write 2 different standards. I know its cool to hate IE but it does have 90% of Firefoxes features and is updated annually now. W3C already changed standards which hurt older phones as they recognize webkit css for Android 2.3.

costs me $5 in tolls
Or you could drive down Rt 7.

Add to that: speed doesn't matter to commercial transports nearly as much as reliability. There are a lot more people who are willing to accept shipment in 3 weeks from today than in 2-4 weeks from today. 5 knots is probably a little bit too slow, but 10-15 knots is a very respectable speed for a large cargo ship. It doesn't seem like much, but you cover a lot of distance doing 10 knots 24 hours a day...

Most of the more distant islands were colonised during small ice ages, when it was possible to walk much of the distance and people had to move a lot because food was scarce. There was thought to be a land bridge from South-East Asia to South America well after homo sapiens came along, and getting from Europe to North America via Iceland and Greenland wasn't such a massive journey for a lost Viking ship aiming for the islands around the north of Scotland.

For a long time, the limiting factor was the amount of food and water that you could carry. The reason that Columbus couldn't get funding for so long was that intelligent people did the calculations of his journey time and worked out that he'd run out of food about half way to India. Fortunately for him, there was a convenient continent a bit less than half way there for him to stop and resupply...