it is not included in the current terms of use:

Restrictions on Use
You agree to abide by all applicable local, state, national, and international laws and regulations in using the Service. You agree that you shall not use the Service for any illegal purpose or in a way that will breach the terms and conditions and that you shall not use the Service to violate the rights of a third party, including without limitation intellectual property rights.

Thanks for finding this nasty piece of the license. It's really irritating. I don't think GOG can be excused with "all lawyers do that". No, only DRM proponents do that. Let GOG put their actions where their [previous] words were. Mind them, GOG themselves benefited from reverse engeenerring old games and modifying them to be more usable on modern systems. Now they forbid doing the same for their paying users...

Yeah, that definitely sounds like another facet of DRM direction. If GOG cares about remaining DRM free they need to train their lawyers to avoid all this related anticircumvention garbage which always accompanies DRM.

It's like, hey, did they also miss that or it's all an orchestrated effort?? Should I now file another wish list item about this policy?...

I commented here.

It deserves its own thread and wishlist entry. I'll add those, since it's a very worrying thing really. It just needs some time to think through how to phrase it.

I made a more detailed post about user agreement issues , please feel free to comment. See also a wishlist entry [url=http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/to_retain_your_drm_free_stance_please_fix_your_user_agreement_to_allow_reverse_engineering_and_tinkering_when_its_fair_use]here.

I heartily stand by almost everything you've said. I'm a sale stalker from literally not being able to buy full price on everything and eat.

I jumped when GOG started to get Linux games, not even knowing Steam was far ahead of them by this point anyways. I advertised them freely in social media because I believe in the "DRM-free revolution".

Now I'm starting to wonder what it was all for. I won't be giving GOG free advertising anymore, or buying any Windows or Linux games, and publicly putting them down, at least warning others about these new developments.

Good point. I was tired and over-thinking my counter to the "what about not getting access to the source code? That's a restriction!" argument.

They sell us the binaries, game resources, and installer code. They never gave us the source code to begin with.

The DRMness is inherent in its attempt to prevent us from using what we were already given in a new way. (eg. Taking the game resources without the other two)

Of course, now I need to decide whether microsoft XWB and Unity resource files count as DRM for trying to stop you from format-shifting the in-game music. (I wouldn't mind calling it DRM, since I certainly feel I've already paid for the right to listen to the soundtrack, regardless of whether the game is running, but it could be a hard sell.)

(Unity moreso than XWB since the Unity devs seem to have put a fair bit of effort into obfuscating the format and changing it whenever an extractor becomes too well-known while an XWB is an XWB and tools like UnXWB are here.)

Here you are a huge leap of logic, your are equaling the "inconvenience" the new installer cause you to some sort of "lack of competence" on GoG part while those are totally unrelated.

Yes that are way in which they could have made the installer that would have allowed them to reach their goals while at the same time not preventing them from being extracted with InnoExtract, but the important part is that if they didn't do it it's not because they are not "competent" enough, they did it simply because they didn't care.

And why didn't they care ? well for a simple reason, because being able to extract the installer without executing never ever was a feature to begin with, it was never supported by GoG, never advertised as a feature (or a core values), and the fact you were able to extract the installer was nothing more than a accident, an accident caused by the fact they used InnoSetup and that there was some external extractor available for it.

So when they had to modify the installer, they probably never worry a single seconds about peoples using InnoExtract, they considered what was their needs and what was the most efficient ways for them to do it, that's all, that's what "not supported" means, if has nothing to do with "competence" of lack of.

They could have hired the most talented software architects/developpers, spend months/years designing a bullet proof ultra compressed state of the art installer that would have been the most bug free and technologically perfect piece of software ever created... but in the end it could have been totally unextractable by any third party software and would have caused you even more "inconvenience" than having to run an script to extract it.

Well they never gave you the possibility to extract the installer to begin with either. It was only possible to do it because, at least for now, they are using InnoSetup, something they are perfectly free to change any day if they feel like it.

Come on, look at it like that then everything become DRM, let's see...

I am given the source code of the Linux kernel... but because of the GPL I cannot take the code and release it using the FreeBSD license, that's definitely DRM!!! The GPL prevent me from changing the license and unsurprisingly copyrights laws prohibit it...

See it can go pretty far pretty fast ;)
Well, most patches (the unofficial ones), fixes and mods already are against the copyright laws unless the rights owner gives you the explicit right to do it. They don't need to write it in their EULA, it's already covered by copyrights laws.

I just realized that, somewhere along the way, I allowed myself to slip from "still responding when there's a good technical point to be made" to responding to everything.

As such, I'll again try to agree to disagree and let you have the last word since I've got better things to do with my time and I assume that you do too.

I did (unkindly) question the devs' competence in a previous post, but I retracted my statement after you corrected me. I see now that I could have been more clear in wording the quoted post, so let me restate it now in the plainest terms possible: this has nothing to do (at least for me) with putting GOG's developers on trial, and everything to do - regardless of the reasons it was created to be this way - with whether or not the end product serves its purpuse well, which is subjective.

The only thing I can do when discussing a subjective issue is to provide you with as much information as possible to help you understand my personal view. I am not trying to give you an absolute truth; I am simply explaining why I would vote against this if given the option, why this seemingly small change impacts my potential usage significantly. I'm not here to evaluate the performance of GOG's engineers, only the suitability of their product to my needs (which I believe are not dissimilar from those of many users here). If I made it seem another way, it was simply my irritation speaking, and I apologize.

Well what you could say is it's time you really start reading EULAs; because this clause is already in the software EULA since the beginning of GoG six years ago, it always was there.

READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE INSTALLING THE PROGRAM. This end user license agreement (this “Agreement”) is a legal agreement between you (an individual or a single entity “You”) and GOG.com or GOG Limited (“Company”) for the accompanying software product which includes computer software and any associated media, printed materials, and/or “online” or electronic documentation (collectively, the “Program”). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the Program, you acknowledge that you have read this Agreement and agree to be bound by the terms. If you do not accept or agree to the terms of this Agreement, do not install or use the Program. (that cover the installer of course)

1.License. Company grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Program, but retains all property rights in the Program and all copies thereof. This Program is licensed, not sold, for your personal, non-commercial use. Your license confers no title or ownership in this Program and should not be construed as any sale of any rights in this Program. You may not transfer, distribute, rent, sub-license, or lease the Program or documentation, except as provided herein; alter, modify, or adapt the Program or documentation, or portions thereof including, but not limited to, translation, decompiling or disassembling. You agree not to modify or attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Program, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted under applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. All rights not expressly granted under this Agreement are reserved by Company.

...

They can say that, but it doesn't make it legal. Also, in doing this they're now guilty of false advertisement as they claim to be DRM free, but they're no long DRM free by any reasonable definition of the word.

I won't be buying any more games from GOG as this is a disgusting move that won't even make them more money in theory. In practice, it won't make them any more money and will probably cost them money as people like me stop buying from them.

Also, they can't change their terms for games that have already been sold wtihout giving us our money back. Contract changes like this are not legally enforceable unless there's a meeting of the minds. Which can't happen if the party that wrote the contract changes the terms after sale unless they give the money back. That's why cell phone carriers in the US have to waive the early termination fee on their contracts if you don't accept modifications to the contract that occur after you've signed up for service.

What "reasonable" definition, you can install the game, fully offline, on any number of computers you want for as long as you want, without GoG being able to do anything about it.

Then you can play the installed games, again for as long as you want without ever being on-line, without GoG being able to do anything about it.

Which reasonable definition consider that as being DRM ?

That DIDN'T change it, it's already in the game EULA and it always was there since day one.

That's false. From day one it was about Games + extras, not about GOG services and data.

hedwards: Also, they can't change their terms for games that have already been sold wtihout giving us our money back. Contract changes like this are not legally enforceable unless there's a meeting of the minds.

Emphasis mine