I don't know exactly what kind of software is better suited for FLOSS. I'm a bit sad that there are no AAA FLOSS games. Open source libraries have been in common use for games for long time, there are a few somewhat adequate engines and Godot is a major promise for changing the landscape.
Now, consider linux, gcc, llvm, apache, the rest of the gnu project... these are technical projects. It looks like "technical people" are willing to improve the tools they use and that drives FLOSS technical/system software to continually evolve through the years.
Regarding artistic software... well they are definitely technical and advanced, but an artist is much less willing or knowledgeable to make any contribution. But, when the right sauce finally mixes in, we get Blender.
So, I think there is hope for the DAW market. If proprietary options don't take care to make good offers, they will be eaten just the same way the traditional proprietary UNIX world was. MacOS survives, but the market the survive into is very different.
AAA games are typically the result of a small army of artists, working overlong hours for a year or three. Go read the credits of one all the way through sometime, and compare to the credits of a summer tentpole action/effects film.
Do you have any proposals for ways to get this many people to work for that long for free? Or for a way to fund them and release the full source for the executables and the assets for free?
I said nothing about the assets. Actually I really think this is a path for good FLOSS AAA games: paid assets. Not even Stallman is opposed to that: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html the part that says "Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software."
Yup, and if you look at Quake 3 Arena as a good example, the game is free software but the assets or not, and as a result of that you wind up with games lime Open Arena and the dozens of other arena style games built from quake. It can still be that way.
Policy in id software in Carmak days was to GPL the last engine as soon as a new one was released. The business model was to expose more people to the old engine, weaken competition and offer consultancy and customization (I think).
They basically showed that it was possible and profitable. It is a shame this ended after doom 3.
Now, consider linux, gcc, llvm, apache, the rest of the gnu project... these are technical projects. It looks like "technical people" are willing to improve the tools they use and that drives FLOSS technical/system software to continually evolve through the years.
Regarding artistic software... well they are definitely technical and advanced, but an artist is much less willing or knowledgeable to make any contribution. But, when the right sauce finally mixes in, we get Blender.
So, I think there is hope for the DAW market. If proprietary options don't take care to make good offers, they will be eaten just the same way the traditional proprietary UNIX world was. MacOS survives, but the market the survive into is very different.