That was the original purpose of this thread; to gather questions, concern and suggestions. So try suggesting and see what happen.

My focus here was "consensual" and "one proposal" currently we have a defocused thread with conflicting individual proposals only.

A single, unified, consensual community proposal of a TOS would have a significant higher relevance and chance for being considered by the GOG representatives.

It's hard since it requires good legal expertise. We expressed the ideas we want to be there, but proper formulation will require work of an expert since it's not a light matter but a legal document. May be you can find such experts around. Another idea would be asking EFF for help with it, since this effort might interest them and they have such legal experts on staff (and also understand these issues very well).

Do you think I should try contacting them about it?

Yes! I think this is the right idea... I could also believe that the EFF would be happy for being asked and having the chance to influence the TOS of a major digital distributor, creating a citeable precedent case with that...

(PS: again, thanks again to GOG for asking the community beforehand for feedback instead of steam-like asking their customers later: "accept or lose your account")

I sent them a question. Let's see what they'll answer.

Well, first off, that was posted in a different thread that I hadn't seen. Second off it's bullshit that they even did it in the first place as it's clearly DRM and by their own admission they were using it as such.

Lastly, past experience with them suggests that we'll get basically a hamfisted response at best and more likely they'll leave it in place with whatever minimal changes are necessary to prevent a revolt. The only reason why they posted it was to see how big of a reaction there was before actually rolling it out. I'll be shocked if they fix their mistake.
They're not really asking. They're "asking" so that it appears that they give a shit when really they're just trying to figure out how much they can get away with before they roll it out. Considering the terms they're suggesting, whatever they wind up with is not something that people can or should be happy with.

Regardless any change they do make isn't going to be enforceable, so I'm not sure what the purpose of changing a EULA that might be enforceable with one that definitely won't be enforceable is.

So far I see no reason to assume that they are "asking" rather than straight asking for feedback. It's good that they do it at all really, so let's wait and see how proposals will be handled. And if EFF will find spare resources to chime in, these proposals will have all the more weight. May be then they can work with GOG directly to help them spell out all this stuff properly.

Because that's their habit. I defended them when they came here and stopped guaranteeing goodies with games when they brought EA here. But, ti's decidedly less cute now that they've brought region-pricing, dropped old games and removed any pretense to screening for quality.

In short, they've long since waived any right to be given the benefit of the doubt as their previous action has suggested that if they back off now, they'll slip in back in when they get the chance.

You've been here since 2011, you ought to know better.

May be I didn't track this whole regional pricing issue closely enough, but if I remember correctly GOG agreed to provide in store refunds for games with such inbalance. Old games got removed because some of the studios couldn't handle that without violating some contracts with their retail distributors I guess, so they had to remove them otherwise it actually would have been even worse here regional pricing wise.

It's not really their fault if peoples uses a very "elastics" definition of DRM; you could still install the games as many time you wanted without them having any control on it (including using Wine) any times and could play any time you wanted too without being online and without any restriction.

Heck most of the suggestion offered to avoid this "password restriction" (e.g. the checksum validation of the RAR files) could also be considered as DRM using the very same definition.

What mistake ? most of the new clauses already existed for years in the games EULA, the only mistake was the one made by all those who never bothered to read said EULAs until a week ago and suddenly discovered their existence.

And apart from the "uber evil" five gifts limits or using California jurisdiction for US citizen, what are those "terms" that they are suggesting that are so shocking that peoples should take torch and pitchforks against ?

Again what in the new EULA will be any more unenforceable than the old one ? The compiling/modifying restriction already existed for games, not change there, basically it only impacts new services like Galaxy, store credits & Co and the five gift limit is easily technically enforceable if they want to.

GOG gave the new TOS very openly for review to the community, no mistake at all. Just good transparent business (credit again to GOG for this!). That our community don't "burst" with a big number of "legalese" speaking people (as that the impact of the current EULA was not noticed), I see as some sign of quality...

What you are talking about? For sure, GOG (and every company) should write EULAs and TOS in a way that they are law-compatible and enforceable. Writing EULA/TOS in way that they have maximum scariness for uninfomed users while they could get pulled anytime by every semi-competent lawyer is.... wrong (to say the least.)

Infact, I would now argue that GOG should pull now all "licensed, not sold" formulations out of the GOG EULA and GOG TOS (external EULAs are another topic) as this position is customer unfriendly, in Europe overall not enforceable & especially to mock Steam and their bad customer treatment. "See Steam, we can do better, also here!"

I was answering to hedwards comments about the new ToS being a "mistake".

And again, most of the "restricting" terms of the new EULA already existed in the games EULA, there is nothing new here. The only new things, apart from some new terms (like the 5 gifts limit), is that now they include Galaxy, movie streaming, and other new services in it.

Well, apart from games, which all have their own EULA saying "licensed, not sold" , GoG doesn't actually sell anything. (Apart from movies maybe). And if you want to remove this mention from games EULA... well good luck with that; it's not a decision GoG can make on their own, all the right owners have to agree.

And again, it doesn't matter when it was included, it was noticed NOW by the community (and is against European law). As GOG asked for feedback to optimize their own TOS, they will fix their standard EULA now too. Also, we have to differentiate clearly between GOG's EULA & TOS (where GOG has full control) vs third party EULAs (where GOG has only limited/no influence).

And GOG has also to differentiate clearly between their own services and GOG content, TOS and EULA wise (what currently is mixed up in a unfortunate manner).

According to European law, they sell games/software. Ownership is transfered despite the "licensed, not sold" formulation which is not enforceable (in Europe).

If some legacy EULA from a publisher is required & not changeable, OK, then such EULAs should be included parallely to a specific product and the standard, very granting GOG EULA.

Not any different than their own definition given by TeT in the past.
The fact that something already existed doesn't mean it's not a mistake or even something deliberately wrong.