there's no crime in using a crack like GOG did, crackers have doomed PC games market and frankly I think they're just a bunch of arseholes, they really shouldn't speak about the use of their crack in the only legit way it can be used

That's fine. Sometimes I don't understand myself either.
*pause*
.
..
.
.
.
.
Who am I and how did I end up here?

eh, eh, i feel like that most of the time.

^5 brah.

Legally, yes. Morally, or ethically? A little more murky.
For example, if GOG was to bundle a game with a fan-made patch, without crediting the fans, and instead trumpeting their 'handsome programming team' (to quote the website!) that would be a little morally dubious, in my opinion, even if legally it was no problem. Now, the GOG team don't make any claims on their website that it is they themselves that remove the DRM, so maybe that covers them.
Now, this makes literally no difference to why I buy the game, or for my support for GOG, or whatever .... However, I think it's worth pointing out that there may be some people who want to buy from GOG to reward them for their hard work in making these games run on modern machines. Those people may occasionally donate to DosBox too ( http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=52551 ). In this case, they can now make a similar choice with regard to the warez "community" that has made playing Arcanum possible through a service like GOG. Or they may decide that the unauthorized cracking of the game represents a rights violation and thus is worthy of no support, or whatever other decision they may decide to come to. It's up to them really, with all the requisite information they have available. I'm pleased that GOG have made a clarification here, and although I'm a little disappointed by what it suggests, it certainly doesn't make me any less likely to keep supporting an excellent service that suits my needs (for legally authorised copies of older games that will run on my netbook) perfectly.

This has never happened and I assume never will happen. A mod or unofficial patch would have to credit the mod/patch creator. This is not what we are talking about here. This is a cracking group that have altered an exe file to circumvent the DRM, Activision certainly don't have to credit anyone for that.

It's also a lot of hard work getting publishers like Activision to release these classic games DRM free. Actually removing the DRM is a very small part of the work GOG do on these titles. Finding the extras, securing publisher deals and getting Win95 games to work on Vista now thats the really hard work.

I know it's never happened. However, many mods/patches (Killap's F2 Restoration patch, say) muck around with the exe files and almost all mods/patches edit proprietary content. The difference is we'd broadly describe one as a nice thing to do, and the other as a nasty thing to do. However, they both require work - actual man/woman hours spent bashing away at the exe. I'm not sure why you think a mod would have to be credited, but a crack wouldn't: there is no need legally to credit either.

Sure! It's tons of hard work - but that isn't really my point.
My point is that GOG couldn't function at its wonderfully low price point without Dosbox, so people that love GOG and dosbox games may feel the need to contribute to the Dosbox as well.

rotfl what? the publisher of the game needs to give credits to the game pirates?
the cracked exe is still a game exe. And the crack itself exists only for the purpose to modify the original one. Have the pirates ever credited the development team of the game that provided them the original exe?

Again, I agree entirely, but that isn't my point. My point is simply this:
1) many mods make games easier to play by editing the exe. If (if!!!) GOG packages a game with one, I'd expect to see a credit
2) many cracks make games easier to run by editing the exe. If (when!) GOG packages a game with a crack, I wouldn't expect to see a credit
I hold a double standard here, and I accept that. But I do accept that it's a double standard!

However, in most cases, fan patches or mods are completely legal and have no moral or ethical ambiguities attached to them, unlike cracks. In the extremely unlikely event that GOG title were to include a fan patch in a game, it would first be with the publisher's (or other rights holder) permission and I'm sure they would provide credit where credit is due. However, this is all completely hypothetical and I really doubt they would ever include a fan patch. At most, they might post something n the game's forum about the fan patch, as they have done in the past with other games and mods for them.

Sorry mate, but you seem to be wilfully misunderstanding me.
1) - Dosbox is an example of a programme that helps GOG do the great work they do. I can contribute to them by donating if I wish.
2) Crackers are an example of people that help GOG do the great work they do. I cannot contribute to them because they are illegal and because GOG does not publish their links with them.
Again, I love GOG. I just think all this 'down with crackers!' stuff is a little bit odd, that's all.

I understand you fine I just don't agree. DOSBox GOG admits has been vital and again they are credited. There has been ONE confirmed exe that may or may not have been altered by crackers. How exactly is that helping GOG?

^5

dudes, it's clear like the sun that GOG possibly never had the source code of a single game they sold. I knew it from the start and seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I want all the games I love to be downloadable from everywhere at any time at a good speed, without worrying about cracking them or installing a series of patches, or getting the risk to take a virus from a modified crack or torrent, I'd pay 5 or 9.99$ only for that.
What's the difference about using an already made crack or cracking the game on their own?
The result is the same.
Also keep in mind that most of the times publishers doesn't have source codes, I'm a game programmer and we never sent source codes to any publisher. So the only way to actually remove a cd check from an old game without having the source is cracking it, using an hex editor, writing a crack or using an already made crack: guess what the faster way is.
I'm actually glad that at least cracks can be useful for developers and publishers from time to time, it's a very little payoff it you think the damage they did to PC games developers