>>536881>That would remove a lot of incentive to develop more powerful technology and slow progress for everyone as a whole.
Not necessarily, we'll always want more powerful tools regardless of who gets what. If the strongest programs are open-source those with the knowledge to do so can improve upon it for everyone. Things don't have to be a competition to improve.
Plus you can still sell a product and offer the source publicly. Various Linux distributions and several art programs, such as Aseprite, are open-source yet still have a price tag. What people pay for is to get the program compiled and tech support. Inevitably this will result in less sales (aside from the big studios that need tech support since it isn't just one guy fucking around that has the knowledge of how to compile the program, so in effect it's about the same as 3DS Max being free to individuals under a Student license) so it's not good if a company is looking to monetarily succeed under capitalism, but it is good for advancing the technology as a whole.
People like to make things, this is no different.