Thanks a lot to all who shared their opinion about this topic! I really appreciate if I can observe dispute and reaction on various arguments (between users), it's very fruitful and giving better insight into topic!

I'm still going to try to convince my siblings to create their own GOG accounts. Fact that they don't have mean also that I can't play with them in games requiring Galaxy for multiplayer (didn't try it so far, but have hope for it (nearest?) future.

Not to mention that I can still have hope that if they'll decide for it (and grab some freebies), they will decide eventually to buy some games on their own. Well, so far I didn't succeeded in convincing them to do so, but who knows what will bring the future?

Sounds like you've tried and they don't care to since they have access to yours. Cut access and they may think otherwise. Of course that may sour the waters since they think what's yours is theirs. Family members like to do that.

Why don't you try the carrot instead of the stick? When gift season approaches, giving them a GOG code (maybe for a game that they are interested in but you aren't) could be a way to get them to create an account. :)

Actually it's very good question and I always wondered how it works. We often repeat that the games purchased here are owned by us. Does it also mean inherited? Is it ok to put your login and password into envelope to be opened and used by your son after your death?

There was actually a thread about this some time back, but I can't find it.

Indeed. Here it is.

Thanks for that. An interesting read ...despite the two going hammer and tongs at each other.

No official confirmation of anything though.
Still, that doesn't really matter much i reckon, as GOG can't possibly know 100% whether you have inherited or not, even if you told them so.
So long as you have the account login, that is kind of all that matters. Anything else like, email address, bank account etc can easily be changed.
The only true issue, would be if you wanted to Merge an existing account of yours, with one you inherited. I don't see GOG providing support for that. And if they did, what about duplicate games? I doubt they would start handing out Gift Codes for each one of those. So far better to keep the accounts independent ... and possibly gain some side benefits from doing so.

As someone did suggest in that topic, though, one should think really hard about where you buy your games. GOG, while probably not supporting inheritance, unlike Steam, don't have anything preventing or making that difficult. Once you have downloaded your games from GOG, the sky is the limit, unless you run into some of the Multiplayer limitations.

At the end of the day with GOG, it is your views and your practices and your conscience.

P.S. I also treat GOG like they could die any day, so make sure I have plenty of backups and keep up-to-date with updates. Nothing is guaranteed in this world, not even the Mighty like Steam and Amazon, etc.

Yes, it's a transfer of licenses, as long as you no longer retain access, and your son agrees to the licenses on install.

That borders on acceptable.
Do you have a link for where you got this fact from?

Before digital distribution, most games were relatively expensive. Nowadays, who would I share with? Bums living in a cardboard box? During the last sale, even most poor teenagers could've hoarded a whole bunch of great games here (not that I know any teenagers, or even kids in general).

Applies in American Law, European should theoretically be similar/more favourable:

(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b)Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—
Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Thanks for providing that, but my reading of it, says it only applies to an additional copy or an adaption.
So I am guessing there is other laws covering the original, that the laws you quoted are subject to.

Section b emphasises that the copies that you made may be transferred ***along*** with the copy where other copies come from. Else selling copies on your own of other peoples software violates Copyright.

Along:
3) in accordance with : in a new agreement along the lines of the first (Merriam)
3) adverb In or into company with others. (Oxford)
5) If you take someone or something along when you go somewhere, you take them with you. (Collins)

edit: the notes section states:

'Since it would be premature to change existing law on computer uses at present, the purpose of section 117 is to preserve the status quo. It is intended neither to cut off any rights that may now exist, nor to create new rights that might be denied under the Act of 1909 or under common law principles currently applicable.'

The latest update was 1980s, nothing mentions about being subject to another. I assume safely it's still de facto law to go to, also combined with the fact a law site giving out of date legal information is recipe for disaster.

edit: Wikipedia, original gateway to the above link: 'The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup with legal restrictions).' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement

To my mind, when you are checking the relevance of a section, it must at least mention the subject you are querying in the heading. Section B does not do that. So it matters very little what else is inside that section. The heading only refers to Additional Copy or Adaption. Everything within the section, is in context to that. So ***along*** does not even get a look in, because you never get to it.

(b)Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—

In other words to be relevant, it must refer to the original copy directly. Very much like a hierarchy. You don't go to rules about a Pageboy, to find out rules about the King.

That's not what fair use is. That's a case where the companies didn't find out about the infringement. But, technically if they had, they could have sued.

Fair use is a specific set of rules that vary a bit from court system to court system. Fair use is still copyright infringement, it's just copyright infringement which is recognized by the court as being for the betterment of society and as such carries no penalty. It's a risky maneuver in any legal system as you're not necessarily guaranteed to get it and you're still out the legal defense money.

The technical aspect of this is that you're not supposed to share these games, they're really for use by one person or on one computer. But, by the nature of the lack of DRM, there's not much that GOG can do unless people tell them that they're sharing like that.

The more people that do it though, the harder it is for GOG to argue for lower prices for the games as the studios are going to want to make up for it via higher prices and fewer sales.