Posted February 05, 2015
There is no need to have a legales version if the GOG version were to be legally binding. The only reason to have a GOG version of the policy in addition to the legally binding version, is for the GOG version to be deceptive in some way, no matter how mild the deception.
One or the other should exist, not both, and that is the one that should be legally binding. Not a so called 'friendly' version that says 'this is what we mean', and then a legally binding version that basically says 'but this is what we REALLY mean.'
As it stands now, if GOG decides not to honor something written in their so called 'friendly' version, they can do so and get away with it legally simply because they also have a legally binding version of the policy change, as well. In other words GOG can simply choose not to honor anything in their friendly version by saying:
Sorry if you have to abide by something you didn't agree to, because you mistook the friendly version as the legally, required, HONEST version, but tuff luck.
Admit it. That's what this all boils down to, so rygold is spot on with his or her concern about GOG having both a legally binding version and THEIR version of the policy change.
They are one agreement and "notes on the margin" in simple English explaining what the points say so that it's easier to get the gist of the agreement or to find a certain point of it.
No statements in either column oppose the other. We've made triple-sure of that.
We don't have a "legally binding version and THEIR version", we have OUR version and an EXPLANATION of it in simpler terms, which is getting a lot of positive feedback for being more legible - again, I feel the need to explain how it's not some sort of "PR stunt", but rather a way to make people's lives easier (kind of as if you said that translating legal agreements would be a PR stunt because it makes someone's life easier and gets positive reactions from those interested).
