I notice that the pre-order version of X4: Foundations Collector's Edition "Requires an Egosoft community account and registration of your GOG X4 Collector's Edition game key".

That sounds suspiciously like DRM. Of course, I may be wrong, I'm no expert in these matters. But if it is DRM is this an abandonment of one of GOG's fundamental principles?

This is about the paint mod, not the game. Was with some games i the past, too.

Pre-order the Collector's Edition of X4: Foundations for a discounted price and get an exclusive paint mod!
(Requires an Egosoft community account and registration of your GOG X4 game key.)

Ah, thank you for pointing this out. Sorry, my mistake.

There has been DRM used in multiple GOG games. Technically a lot of the '80s early '90s games that needs a question answered to play the game is DRM. The Witcher 3 disc came with a forced Galaxy install. F.E.A.R. apparently had DRM for ages and so on and so on. But these things are all hush hush here.

You realize that the 80's/90's games were literally baked into the game, right? Like, there is literally no way to remove it without getting access to the source code. So the only real option for those games is to not sell them at all, which would be really stupid since no online connection is needed at all, since technically DRM is a form of copy protection but not all copy protection is DRM, the copy protection from the 80/90s are not DRM.

Witcher 3 didn't require GoG Galaxy. The initial batch of disks that were printed was missing some files to prevent the game from being leaked out early, and the customers just had to go to a website to download the rest of the files, no key nor any GoG Galaxy required. Disk printed after the game launched didn't need to do this.

Copy protection != DRM. Especially if the copy protection is something like "Dial a Pirate". DRM means someone other than you has control over if and how you can use the product. They can effectively deny access (like Amazon removing 1984 from people's Kindle or Steam removing music from GTA:SA).
This is not true for old-school copy protection - as long as you are in possession of the required physical media (manual, Dial-a-Pirate-disk, original CD) and a compatible system nobody can stop you from using the product.
I don't deny that copy protection is annoying and can get in the way of preservation, but DRM, while it can also serve as copy protection mechanism, is a different beast.

2 x wrong.

There are many ways to remove those in-game things, source code is not at all required. If pirates managed to hack&crack them 25 years ago, it shouldn't be too challenging today. Some GOG games actually have these kind of cracks, like Incredible Machine (some of them) where answering the DRM question right or wrong doesn't affect anything.

Also, with all those games that use ScummVM you have a reverse engineered source code available, so skipping those parts could really be done in a few minutes. I guess you can argue that those were also puzzles in the game so removing them or altering them changes the gameplay. That's another discussion, the point is, it can be done. Well if we start splitting hairs here, not all DRM is copy protection. For instance, in some rare cases some software cannot be run on certain hardware (made deliberately incompatible), even if you can copy it as much as you want.

But for all practical purposes DRM = copy protection and vice versa. Online connection has nothing to do with that, it just allows new forms of DRM. But you can have physical discs with a load of DRM, and no online connection.

And a simple manual check is indeed DRM as it limits your options to use the product. If you install a game on two computers in two different places, you can only use one of them, which is where ever the manual happens to be. These days as manuals are PDFs and themselves can be copied this isn't an issue, but back then, it was totally DRM.

So denuvo, starforce etc. Are not drm then? Only when a third party can control your access is it drm?
I really think we need a new definition here as every time this comes up there is this silly splitting hairs by companies and users.
Perhaps something like Third Party Control Mechanism, which will incoreperate the biggest evil - online only, code based encryption like denuvo, copy protection such as code wheels, and dodgy EULAs all in one sweep of the brush. Of course GOG won't adopt it as they like pushing what is valid and what is not, but it would simplify discussions.

I don't know if Denuvo "phones home", but it's marketed as "anti-tamper" - it's supposedly the protection of the actual DRM to protect from cracking. Starforce and SecuROM had online activation in later incarnations - that's definitely DRM.

Iirc DRM as a term crept up with the online activation crap (Windows XP, HL2, Spore - remember all the 1-star-reviews?) and protected mp3 (thank gods this died out when iTunes dropped it). Before that, there was simple copy protection - either by "non standard media" (for instance the infamous "long tracks" on Amiga disks...) or manual/code wheel checks. Actually the manual could be called "copy protection" for many more complex older games, since you couldn't really play them without looking stuff up (simulators, the old Gold Box games with printed story paragraphs). Calling this "DRM" waters down the term IMO.

The cracks didn't remove those yes/no/what ever questions, they were still in the game, because they are baked into the game. So I am not wrong, nothing was removed from those games, the cracks only made it possible to get through the copy protection without actually having the manual/code wheel/cd.

But you are still wrong in calling all copy protection as DRM, that isn't true at all. DRM is the newest form of copy protection, it is an online form of copy protection and that is why DRM was coined, DRM does not include the copy protections that need no internet connection. DRM is a management system, it relies on servers to manage the licenses, games in the 80s/90s didn;t have a server managing the licenses, therefore the games in the 80's and 90's did not have DRM, rathter they had a different form of copy protection.

Another example of DRM we're all familiar with.. no servers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System

Communication with a server the simply the usual way in which the "management" part is implemented. With which the "control" is enforced. Of course in case of in example Windows, the activation can be done via phone too. In this case access to the server by the product Windows itself is not necessary.

DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works
... digital content and device monitoring...
...limiting its range of uses after purchase...

One could say, classic copy protection is a passive technology (like a road block of stone), while DRM is an active technology (like an armed guard watching you).

From the page: "The player has to execute an authentication handshake first..." - means the drive acts as the server, the player is the client. Same goes for HDMI protection, although there are even more parties involved. In fact most of the power consumption playing a BD is wasted on encryption, decryption, authentications and stuff.

Server does not mean internet necessarily. In fact every OS acts as server in many ways - you have client-server architecture present within many devices.

I would still see CSS as an edge case, since it's a mostly passive system. Worse is the BD system which could in theory brick your player if it's on the "compromised list" BDs can contain.

"The user has to enter secret code" means the software acts as the server, and you are the client. How is that any different?