I wish this tired GPL counterpoint would be put to rest. If you provide the source code for your software, someone else will compile it and distribute a binary legally and for free.
My entire point is that this isn't true. The aforementioned game released its source code--and nobody cared.
The GPL applies to code only--nothing else. If a game's source code is GPL, that doesn't give anyone permission to legally distribute the game--all the art and assets are still not GPL'd, only the binaries are. I don't see how one could possibly sanely think that I would find a copy of, say, Civilization 4 without models, textures, and sound to be useful.
And companies vastly overvalue their source code. They assume that since they spent $1m developing something that the source is worth $1m, when in reality there's probably nobody in the world who would pay a cent for their crappy code.