Games are more complicated than usual software

I agree with many author's point of view and thoughts. I want to clearly differentiate games from usual common software: game consists of game engine -- the common usual software piece, and of art of different kinds (storyline, all texts, `monsters', adventure/quest ideas, main character skills, textures, sounds, maps, and so on. I do not agree with statements such as `games are not mission critical' -- game's engine is common software and all four free software's freedoms can and should be applied without any exclusions. But game's art is the very different story -- actually it does not have anything related to free software. It should be overviewed in totally anonther way.

I think that game's engine should be free software anyway -- as every software should. Game developing companies won't loose anything from commercial point of view, because game's engine itself does not do much. Even Richard Stallman mentioned that fact about games -- that their art is totally different thing than engine, and engine without any doubts of course should be free software.

There are free culture, free arts, etc movements regarding to the question of arts themselves. I have nothing against them, but currently I do not understand them good enough (actually maybe have never tried) to say that art should be free too. Copyright (and so called `intellectual property' (term containing copyrights, trademarks and patents at once)) related problems is another question.

From free software movement's point of view, game's engines must be free, but their art part (the main one -- that makes game itself) maybe shouldn't and it is ok to distribute engine freely (maybe without any price), but not art's section.