Even though GOG's own client (GOG Galaxy) has been requiring Windows 10 for even longer, you could always just download the games from their website and manually install them no problem.
But even then, GPL + Commons does not give you trademark rights, only the ability to reuse the assets under a different name. So unless you have GPL + Commons + Trademark, do you really have ownership?
But hold on, in Japan and in the US, game mechanics can be patented. So who cares if you have the code, assets, and trademark, if you don't have patent rights? I suppose you need GPL + Commons + Trademarks + Patent Assignment; or maybe you swap out GPL with Apache2.
Now hopefully whoever made the artwork doesn't sue for unpaid royalties. You're relying on the declared licenses, but it's still possible that whoever made the game, lied in one way or another. It's also possible there are applicable patents owned by other companies, which weren't disclosed.
The point is: Even with GPL code, it's still a long way from being "your game." I didn't even mention the middleware like Havok Physics or Unity Engine; which would render your GPL game code pretty useless without a proprietary attachment, if using the GPL license at all is even legal with such a combination.
there’s misaligned incentives between the people writing the game and the people wielding c compilers as political weapons.
i swear every time i can’t compile code it is not clear which aspect of c failed— the dynamic linker working around gpl limitations as technical debt, the kernel itself using a more advanced c with backwards breaking changes, the code being written for the wrong architecture triple, or the code was written for a different c compiler altogether
i don’t actually try and fix it because bit rot only gets worse if i notice the problem.
linux has appimage, but containerization also falls prey to gpl.
exe, appimage, containerization are ideologically opposed to the gpl—- errr the other way around. gpl essentially requires compiling from source, which is great, but the intention behind that is to disrupt software supply chain distribution and most people want to be able to upgrade their computer, which is architecturally challenging with gpl, which is where nix, guix and the like can politely solve the compilation and distribution problem
but the core problem is my mom wanted a picture of me to know i’m alive, which is now entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
GPL requires the source to be available.
EXE’s are not containers more than any other program file
I don't demand GPL rights over the movies I watch, or the books I read, so I'm not sure why I'd require that for games. Of course source-available would be better than not but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I'd rather play some good games.