shmerl: Not evil (I suppose). Just not paying attention enough or too busy with other stuff. But if they won't answer soon enough, they'd be considered not caring about it (and that's just one step before switching to the wrong side in the whole DRM-free issue).

mqstout: Technically MaGOG and the Linux downloader client both violate that clause.

johnnygoging: Games that were considered DRM-Free before all of this still had their code obfuscated so that they could not be run on Linux until someone started building something so that they could (Wine). Is that DRM too?

johnnygoging: gog has already explained this

johnnygoging: if you don't get a response, keep also in mind that gog must pick its battles and be wary of PR for things. if they don't respond it does not necessarily mean they are up to no good, but it could simply be a case of them not wanting to start pushing a new front when they still have the Galaxy client and the regional stuff to think about.

shmerl: Not long ago you announced an upcoming update to your user policies and user agreement.

The new user agreement includes this paragraph about reverse engineering: shmerl: It's quite problematic to reconcile with your official DRM-free stance in such form. Let me explain why. For that it's necessary to clarify some historic background about DRM and surrounding legal climate.

DRM proponents (such as and the like) weren't satisfied with the mere usage of DRM, since they quite quickly realized that it's completely ineffective to prevent any piracy. They devised a legal framework around it which forbids breaking DRM, and even publishing research on how to break it. Those are called anticircumvention laws ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention]see here for the list of such laws in different countries). However they wanted much more than just preventing breaking DRM for infringing purposes. They wanted to forbid removing DRM for any legitimate purpose as well (research, interoperability, personal back ups, and other forms of fair use). I.e. they wanted indiscriminately to forbid it outright. Not that such framework prevented any piracy either - it didn't. But it gave them something else, read on.

When they attempted to present such laws to local parliaments, those initially refused since they could see that such laws are draconian and forbid legal fair use and as well can even violate common rights like free speech (when for example you publish research on breaking DRM). DRM proponents weren't deterred though. They turned to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which was much easier to manipulate since it doesn't have a proper democratic process. They managed to put anticircumvention proposals into WIPO international treaties and agreements. Once they cemented those, they turned back to local parliaments and said: "Hey, you can't ignore your international obligations! You need to pass local anticircumvention laws!". And that undemocratic and corrupt backdoor scam worked. Most parliaments around the world passed those laws (like DMCA-1201 in USA). See here for historic overview of this corrupt process and those who were involved in that scheming.

Once DRM proponents got those laws in place, they started using them for all kind of nasty stuff from censorship to preventing competition, but that's really besides the point. The main point is that those corrupt laws are in place, and efforts to repeal them (like this one) are a very hard uphill battle.

So now with understanding the current legal climate around DRM, let's go back to GOG user agreement. It forbids to "reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble <...> GOG services or GOG content – unless you’re allowed in this Agreement or by the law in your country".

Now consider for example recent addition to GOG service - password on RAR packages in the installer. It hinders Linux users or anyone who would prefer to unpack them manually for example. So community looked into it, disassembling / reverse engineering the way to calculate those passwords. All that was fair use of those who pay GOG for these games. Sounds good? Not really according to this user agreement, and even the phrase about "allowed by laws in your country" doesn't help it, since as above laws in many countries forbid even fair use DRM breaking.

I hope you can see now that such language in the user agreement is problematic in the light of your DRM-free stance because of the sickening legal climate around DRM.

Can you please look into fixing that part of the user agreement somehow. For example add there "unless it's for the purpose of fair use" or anything like that, which would nullify restrictions placed by anticircumvention laws on such kind of activity?

It's somewhat ironic that you yourself benefited from reverse engineering and tinkering with old games, running them not in originally intended way and etc. Since it allowed you to bring them to modern platforms. Forbidding that now for your paying customers when it's fair use case would be strange at least, and not in the DRM-free spirit.

________________________
* Please vote for the corresponding wishlist entry.

shmerl: This makes this TOS problem less actual and more potential, but it's still something that should be addressed.

shaddim: Well, with the "modify" and "merge" terms it is for us already beyond potential implications & pretty real as these formulations prevents every user adaption like community patches and mods on the gog content, as also the creation of (legit) user created content.

shmerl: I'm not sure what GOG can do exactly to fix that besides trying to argue with publishers (that's not going to be easy).

shmerl: I'm not sure what GOG can do exactly to fix that besides trying to argue with publishers (that's not going to be easy).

shmerl: However clarifying the TOS with clearly marking areas related to GOG services and tools and areas related to publishers games and etc. is still useful. Right now it's all lumped together.

immi101: but then those publisher can have their own EULA's on top of the GOG one. Quite a few already have those anyway.

immi101: but then those publisher can have their own EULA's on top of the GOG one. Quite a few already have those anyway.

And then there are games like "Beneath A Steel Sky". A game which is freely available, which states in its readme that you are free to modify, even distribute, the game. And GOG still slaps its restrictive EULA on top of that.
That surely is fixable.

Gersen: Not just quite a few, nearly all of them actually (even Warsow actually :) );

immi101: i was speaking of games with different EULAs then the "default GOG" one. Games from EA for example.