It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionPlease fix your user agreement to allow reverse engineering and tinkering when it's fair use, to retain your DRM free stance(206 posts)(206 posts)
(206 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 04, 2015
avatar
shmerl: So here is how GOG worded the new user agreement:
https://www.gog.com/support/policies/gog_user_agreement
9.1

(b) Regarding GOG content, what you can do practically (which includes to modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of it) depends on what the GOG content rights holder allows you to do (GOG can’t grant such rights), so please check this with the rights holder directly (the first thing you should do though is to check if they have a EULA and if so what it says). We also ask that you make only genuine attempts to improve the GOG content.
(c) Regarding GOG services (which includes GOG software), unless you have prior GOG permission please don’t modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works ofthem – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country. We’d like to emphasise that you are free to contact us for permission to do these things and we will review and respond to those requests in good faith. More generally, at some point in the future we want to open client protocols to make it easier for users to work with GOG data/software without any need for reverse engineering or similar techniques.
avatar
shmerl: Firstly, it's good that GOG clarified the separation between GOG content which they don't own, and their own services which they own. That's very useful. Secondly however GOG still doesn't clearly allow fair use reverse engineering in the agreement in case when there can be a suspicion of anticircumvention issues. That's unfortunate. Opening the protocols in the future is a welcome step, but the above issue isn't really solved.
b.) hmmm, I think it's a big step forward. They at least don't needlessly & (pro-)actively limit the user rights further than what is given in the EULA by the publisher. So, GOG grants you all rights to do what you want with the sold content, limited only by the publishers EULA.

c.) hmmm, it's undebateable restrictive. Maybe a little bit too restrictive but at least they mentioning good faith responses on requests... OK, I can live with that.

PS: " We also ask that you make only genuine attempts to improve the GOG content. " I think this is too vague and therefore potentially restrictive. Is not every change of content non-"Genuine" and therefore illegal? This should be dropped. (And maybe exchanged against a clause for "attribution" and authorship of changed content.)
Post edited February 04, 2015 by shaddim
Posted February 04, 2015
With the new UA it doesn't seem like the installers are clearly defined as GOG services or GOG content. It seems like the intention is the latter though?
Posted February 04, 2015
avatar
MetalPlateMage: With the new UA it doesn't seem like the installers are clearly defined as GOG services or GOG content. It seems like the intention is the latter though?

This Agreement is a contract between you and GOG <...> and applies to www.GOG.com, your GOG user account, the GOG Downloader, the GOG Galaxy Client for updating games, any games or videos or other content which you purchase or access via GOG.com, the GOG web forums, GOG customer and technical support and other services we provide to you (we'll just call all this “GOG services” for short).
This pretty much covers the installer as well. To simplify, what GOG owns is called GOG services, what GOG doesn't own is called GOG content.
Post edited February 04, 2015 by shmerl
Posted February 06, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Secondly however GOG still doesn't clearly allow fair use reverse engineering in the agreement in case when there can be a suspicion of anticircumvention issues.
If it's "fair use", then surely it's allowed under law, which the agreement seems to accept. To quote, with emphasis added:
... unless you have prior GOG permission please don’t modify, merge, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works ofthem – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country.
avatar
shaddim: PS: " We also ask that you make only genuine attempts to improve the GOG content. " I think this is too vague and therefore potentially restrictive. Is not every change of content non-"Genuine" and therefore illegal?
I don't think that they're asking that all attempts do something that makes the product non-"genuine", but rather asking that people honestly try to make improvements with their changes, rather than, say, damaging something or making life difficult for users. Put another way, they're asking that the attempt to improve be genuine, not that the change produce a product that is genuine. That, at least, is how I read that line.
Posted February 06, 2015
*reads stuff* Damnit it's harder than I remember..
Posted February 06, 2015
avatar
Antimateria: *reads stuff* Damnit it's harder than I remember..
+1
Posted February 06, 2015
avatar
Antimateria: *reads stuff* Damnit it's harder than I remember..
avatar
amok: +1
Actually first +1 ever I've gotten.. ^^
Posted February 06, 2015
avatar
shmerl: Secondly however GOG still doesn't clearly allow fair use reverse engineering in the agreement in case when there can be a suspicion of anticircumvention issues.
avatar
Thaumaturge: If it's "fair use", then surely it's allowed under law, which the agreement seems to accept. To quote, with emphasis added:
Not always, you didn't read my first post in this thread. Please do.
Post edited February 06, 2015 by shmerl
Posted February 06, 2015
avatar
Thaumaturge: If it's "fair use", then surely it's allowed under law, which the agreement seems to accept. To quote, with emphasis added:
avatar
shmerl: Not always, you didn't read my first post in this thread. Please do.
I'm pretty tired, and your first post is a fairly long one. ^^;

However, I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article to which you linked in that post, I believe, and note this section:

Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve the ability the interoperability of computer programs (i.e., the ability to exchange and make use of information).
I do see what you're saying about fair use (the same article mentions that the issue has been criticised for its lack of an exemption for fair use, although I also note that it goes on to say that in practice the courts have apparently found both for and against fair use, varyingly.

Still, at the very least I note that there's the explicit option of contacting GOG for permission. I can understand that this might leave a bad taste in one's mouth, especially if one feels that the exemption should by rights be present, but I do think that it's a pretty liberal licence as it is, as far as licences go. (That doesn't mean that I'm arguing that you shouldn't be upset; this is clearly important to you, and I do see your viewpoint, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions.)
Posted February 12, 2015

This Agreement is a contract between you and GOG <...> and applies to www.GOG.com, your GOG user account, the GOG Downloader, the GOG Galaxy Client for updating games, any games or videos or other content which you purchase or access via GOG.com, the GOG web forums, GOG customer and technical support and other services we provide to you (we'll just call all this “GOG services” for short).
avatar
shmerl: This pretty much covers the installer as well. To simplify, what GOG owns is called GOG services, what GOG doesn't own is called GOG content.
Thanks, that's what I figured. Guess that prohibits making your own installers without permission even for personal use.
Posted May 29, 2015
Attempting to prohibit reverse engineering is a fairly common but yet completely unethical stance. Reverse engineering is part of ownership, technical progress, and open society. GOG.com should not have this clause, because it is wrong, but also because it provides no actual legal protection. If the reverse engineering is not legal, then this clause offers no additional safety to GOG.com, and if it is legal, then this is an illegal contract.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionPlease fix your user agreement to allow reverse engineering and tinkering when it's fair use, to retain your DRM free stance(206 posts)(206 posts)
(206 posts)