Cormoran: I concur!
Also, and I'm just throwing it out there, GOG. You could really go a long way in the trust department by giving your entire catalogue away for free to everyone, even those without an account!
What does it have to do with the subject of the thread? We aren't talking about games (GOG has no control over them, it's up to developers how to price them). We are talking about the Galaxy client which GOG develop.
timppu: And there you would be completely wrong. It was not about someone taking the whole GOG client code 1:1 and presenting as their own (and someone spotting it), but about sharing your development work (even small parts of it) with your potential competitors. It doesn't really matter which kind of software we are talking about there.
Why such paranoia about sharing your development code? Those competitors can even contribute to the client (surprise!) becoming collaborators in the project. Closed source mentality often can't grasp this simple idea. And as I said, it's not like GOG is selling the client and scared that competitors will take it for free.
I guess your example would be Jolla. They were criticized actually for promising to release their Sailfish OS as open source and failing to deliver.
BKGaming: Closed platforms have advantages over open source ones... same as open source has advantages over close platforms... in this case I would rather the platform remain closed.
The fear of fragmentation is false here. So what if others would run a modified client? If those modifications are good for users, it can encourage GOG to accept them in their own version. And if they decide not to, users can run the alternative. It's good, not bad for users. If some users won't like other version, they can always take the GOG one. Bad quality forks die out quickly in the open source world. Such kind of irrational fear of forks simply has no basis.