No sure what you are implying here, I literally don't know anyone at GoG or this GamerZahk person. I don't think it was intentional, but that does not change my stance that I don't want my mod/mods distributed in this way. Especially after showing lack of respect by not even bothering to contact me and others before releasing this pre-pack anyway.

I'm not trolling. You're speaking against the modders' intellectual property rights. They made the mods, not anyone at GOG. Modders have not been giving permission for distribution. They have given permission for users' personal use.

I remember a story about a guy who drew a picture of some crazy chicken and one local fast food owner used it as a storefront logo. The guy accused the fast food owner in using his work as an advertisement. The fast food owner proposed some money compensation to "ease the bad situation". And when a news channel asked the guy why he denied the payment from the fast food owner, he answered: "I hate fast food!"

"Free chickens! Would you like to buy some French fries to it?"

You think it wasn't intentional but specially because you weren't contacted you want your mod out of the pack. Well it is not specially reasonable to me sorry.

But obviously If you do not want your mod in the pack for any conceptual reason you have it IS perfectly legit, of course. As I said before you could try to contact GOG to retire your mod from the pack. It could be a matter of good faith the act of retiring it, like is a matter of good faith let a free mod be included in a free bundled pack.

The visiblity of Daggefall Unity and their modding potential should be boosted exponentially

Greetings

Can you blame the mod makers for wanting a better quality control over their creations while some digital store treat such creations as its own store product (even if it's being advertised as a free stuff)?

I looked at Rest Warning if Unwell, and I see that it uses the MIT license. That's a very permissive license that specifically allows redistribution and selling.
How do permissions work in the Mods world to restrict the permissible usage beyond the license?

Bottom line is as I already explained. Kick, scream and throw a tantrum. The laws are not going to matter even under the assumption they apply at all. The end result would be paying money for a take down that ends after about a year or longer and it changes nothing. Arguing here wont make gog care. They dont even respond to paying customers. Why would anything talked about involving free content matter to them , when you take this fact into consideration?(rhetorical question)

End of subject.

I do not know frosty_shake, but I feel confident what frosty_shake is trying to communicate is that your MIT license seems to pretty much allows anyone to do anything with your mod that they wish -- commercial or otherwise -- as long as they credit you. If tighter legal control of your mod's usage was a priority, you probably should have used a hardier license that gave you more control of your creation upon publishing. Granted, you may not have known this... but...

From tl;drLegal:

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

With all of that said, it's a difficult situation. I think a lot of people are learning about licenses ATM.

May GOG bend to modders' demands to remove mods? Maybe... and that may be the right thing. I do not know. But at the moment, from a layman's perspective (not a lawyer... not giving legal advice), I'd make certain GOG has all of your information correct and credits correct regarding your specific mod. Your MIT license does stipulate credit.

A MIT License is one of the most permisive licenses it lets the user "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software"

It is basically the step before the proper no restriction "Public Domain" License

But I guess that things do not work so literally in a friendly mod community. Because If I am not wrong one of the few conditions in the license is that "All publicity of the software must be notified to the Authors" Notified, not permission. But I guess that it is a non written rule ask for permission. Politeness, etc.

I have no words, Gog messing up as usual..
This was supposed to be a good thing, but they managed to ruin it..

P.s: btw, I think the Gog dev\pub thing is just because they didn't know what to add in those mandatory fields, so they chose a default value (Gog)

So I finally was contacted by somebody from GoG. But this was only after I directly contacted GamerZahk from some posts on Reddit. I requested my mod/mods be removed, so will see what happens. Safe to say the conduct was unnecessarily rushed for this GoG Cut.

Sure seems to have successfully confused at least one gaming news outlet:
"Elder Scrolls Daggerfall Gloriously Remade In Unity By GOG, Go Get It Free For PC"
(https://hothardware.com/news/daggerfall-unity-gog-cut)

P.S. The default value, as we all know, is not "GOG". It is "TEST DEVELOPER".

Respect!
Thanks for your generosity sharing your talent to the gamers and please pass the message to the rest of the modders if possible.

About contacting gog:
Have you tried to PM with Staff people?
If you are new to that,
gog.com/forum/general/forum_faqs_new_to_the_forum_click_here/post1
(Section "What is a PM?")

About who users are staff?
This thread is to "catch em all"
gog.com/forum/general/quest_for_the_missing_blues

You and the rest of the modders may take the opportunity
to ask to give your accounts the "Developer" badge
(orange text, example)
gog.com/forum/stasis_series/list_of_save_games_general_troubleshooting/post3


------------

I wonder, if gog has the ability to disable some fields from the Game details section like:
-Tags
-Release date
-Rating

"Company" could also be disabled?

Or maybe: Redirect the "Company" hyperlink to the modders website?
Something like happens with GWENT "Forum discussion" pointing to
gog.com/forum/gwent_the_witcher_card_game
but redirected to
forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/gwent.23/
Or the "Forum discussion" of "Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Demo"
pointing to
gog.com/forum/general

Seems alternatives exists to give better credits to the modders...

From my MaGog days, I don't remember any game with no developer/publisher field, so it might be difficult to disable, but the field is simply a concatenation of two strings. I remember at least one game that had four individual developers listed. I am sure they could make the developer string empty (i.e. ""), or have something like "See list of modders in the game description".