Of course it does. It applies to everything except photographs and movies, which have their own laws. But a google search will confirm it for you.
Actually, no it doesn't. Some legal jurisdictions treat software as literary works, and apply Berne convenction (eg Germany or US), but others do not.
The models don't really make a difference. You seem to be saying the entire game can't be copyrighted because the specific models can't be, which is false.
But what he can actually copyright?
Red Hat charges for support and other stuff, or for add-ons to the original software. There are also different open-source licenses. Some say you can charge for the code if you continue to keep that new code open source. But Red Hat makes it's money mainly from big companies that use their software and pay through the nose for the support.
Yes, but it has nothing to say with part you just quote here.
Open source does not mean "you must keep this free". It means you must keep the shared code you use available for other people to use if they want. It says nothing about code or programs you attach to it. And that you cannot copyright that portion of the code.
It's not just what you can and can not copyright. It's how you use LGPL component. Here we are talking about LGPL restrictions.
Derivative works of LGPL software has to be distributed by restrictions of LGPL. For example RenPy. It's published under MIT, but, as pointed in licenses it's derivative work of LGPL components. So, in order to DMCA RenPY games, one developer would have to separate his own code from LGPL libraries. Which nobody does. Actually, it's shipped directly with LGPL libs. Not that they use shared libraries.
The Macbook is just a tool, like RenPy software.
Very bad analogy. When you make a story on Macbook, your final product doesn't contain mackbook, or any of it's parts. RenPy game contains RenPy engine which has restrictions of use due to different licenses.
In fact, if you use MSOffice, as many of writers typing at Macbook, your final story would have more to do with Microsoft, as you would use format they copyrighted (doc or docx).
I don't think you really understand what open source means, or how it applies to work created with it or derived from it. Yes, there are parts that are open source. And there are parts added by the devs that are not. Those parts are copyrightable.
Dude, seriously, do you even read me. Somebody could add large chunks of his own code, and make his own engine based on RenPy, but in order to copyright he would have to separate his own code from LGPL parts. Simple as that.
Even just the story itself is, and honestly that's enough for them to be able to get someone to exercise the DCMA.
Of course somebody can copyright a story. But here we speak about story which is included in software code.
The fact that part of something is open source does not make the entire thing open source,
Emh, let's repeat some things.
Entire RenPy is open source. It's released under MIT license. It would allow for somebody to incorporate it in proprietary software, but as it's derived of some LGPL licensed libraries (shipped and can't work without it), restrictions of LGPL apply to RenPy. RenPy game is not only work produced by RenPy SDK. It's the RenPy engine + images, story and videos. Since it contains RenPy, all restrictions of RenPy apply to it.
1)RenPy is derivative work of LGPL libs->2)RenPy game is derivative work of of RenPy->3) RenPy game is derivative work LGPL libs.