timppu: Sorry if I am not fully up to date about open source, but is it so that GOG wouldn't be able to control to which direction such open source client would be heading?
Say, if a number of client users/developers thought it to be a great idea that the client would also let you share your purchased GOG games directly with other users (the client could e.g. include p2p functionality for that), if you feel so. If GOG opposed that idea (as it would make the game publishers quite anxious, I believe), would GOG have any power to block such feature from the client?
Control over the project doesn't require it to be closed source. Those who control code commits essentially control the end result. I.e. let's say there is a set of approved committers. If someone proposes a patch / update / bug fix, it can be merged, or rejected on whatever grounds. Open source project is not equal to "do whatever you want" kind of management.
StingingVelvet: Sounds like a neat idea that will never happen and that's okay.
Why can't it happen, care to elaborate?
shmerl: ...One of the major problems with other services - their clients are closed source. And they mess on your computer installing and updating stuff, while essentially being black boxes. This isn't how things are supposed to be done in order to build trust. ... What do you think?
Trilarion: I think it would be a nice move of GOG although it's not really necessary. After all even Windows is a black box and I'm using it <...>
I actually already trust GOG enough that when they say they aren't spying on us, then they don't. But then I also use Windows and Steam.
Not necessary, but it would give GOG an edge over the competition by building their trust even more. "Already trusting" isn't really good enough for any such closed client. You can avoid using Windows which is a black box if you want. There are open source OSes. I'd say anyone who cares about privacy and DRM-free choices won't use Windows, since Windows is by definition already DRM.
Trilarion: On the other hand maybe GOG just don't want to give control away. And if the API is unknown, it would be hard for the community to come up with their own solution.
Control over what? Having an open client and protocol doesn't give any control over the service away, since GOG defines that protocol and backend functionality. Unknown API and client doing stuff in secret are always worse security and trust wise. And there is no point for GOG to "control" the client as in preventing alternative implementations. GOG doesn't lose anything from community built clients for their service, as well as from opening their own implementation of the client.
timppu: But if GOG has full control over it (its features etc.), could it be considered open source anymore?
Maighstir: If the API is openly documented, the official client itself doesn't need to be open source. Third-party implementations will appear (admittedly, they already have, through black-box observation).
That's right, it doesn't need to, but it would be much better if it would be open source. As I said above, for the sake of enhancing trust and privacy respect and differentiation with the competition on that. And if GOG opens it, community has more chances to contribute to that client, instead of reinventing the wheel.
Fenixp: To be fair, I think OP is asking for the code to be released for peer (and internet rage idiots) review, not necessarily community expansion.
AndrewC: That's what I gather from the original post, but afterwards he adds:
shmerl: Potential collaboration with the community (bug reporting,
contributions and etc.). I see GOG only gaining, and losing nothing by doing this.
AndrewC: Though I see that potential keyword in there.
The problem is that maintaining an open-source project is not something I'd think of "losing nothing by doing this" because there's a lot of bureaucracy, especially if you accept community contributions/forks.
About the level of freedom in the code. Firstly, having it as open source (for review and trust), but not allowing contributions / modification (i.e. not free software) is pretty silly, since it would prevent any potential bug fixes and enhancements that could come from the community. There is no point in doing that. There might be something new to learn for GOG about managing an open source project, but it's not as scary as you might think. Though, even if contributions aren't allowed, but the code is open for review - it would be still a big improvement over the black box code.