Geralt_of_Rivia: Nope, GOG has clearly stated they'll do it again if the dev asks.
Timboli: I don't recall GOG ever saying that specifically, though some members aired that as likely being possible again.
They way I remember it, they said the DEV asked and so they did it.
Whether they will again or not I don't know, but like I said I hope the flack they copped would prevent it happening again ... one can but hope. In any case, it's not common.
Geralt_of_Rivia: And the Daggerfall case was no infringement.
Timboli: In your view. Others here totally disagreed with you, myself included.
That said, we don't need to go over all that again, and certainly not here.
All that matters is GOG behaved like it was an infringement, and rectified things.
And really what I said still stands, whether that particular instance was an infringement or not.
Regarding demo removals:
It's pretty much in the post I linked. SmollestLight said two things on behalf of GOG:
1) The demo was removed from users' libraries on the dev's request.
2) This will never happen with full games.
Since demos are not full games this clearly means that if a dev will ask for a demo to be removes from libraries they will remove it.
Regarding the Daggerfall mod:
Sorry, but there are no 'views' here. There is also nothing to 'agree' or 'disagree' with. The facts are the facts.
You can download the mod from the author's GitLab yourself and check what license he put on it. Seeing that it is the MIT license you can download the license and read it yourself. And if you don't understand it ask a lawyer what it means. He will tell you the same thing that I did.
