I find myself unable to agree to the terms of the EULA, specifically for Fallout, although I suspect this license is common across the board.
Part of the license reads "You may not transfer, distribute, rent, sub-license, or lease the Program or documentation,..." This section, particularly the restraint on transferring the program, seems to go against the spirit of offering DRM free games. Just like books I own, I should be able to give my games to friends when I am done with them.
Another point of the EULA denies any right to "alter, modify, or adapt the Program". Not only is this language so vague as to potentially prevent the use of various mods, it also potentially prevents me from legally using the program should I need hack the executable or what not when I move to Windows 7 (or whatever new operating system I may choose).
Finally, and most disturbing, the EULA reads "This Program is licensed, not sold, for your personal, non-commercial use. Your license confers no title or ownership in this Program and should not be construed as any sale of any rights in this Program." This from a company which in the "About Us" section of their website writes "...at GOG.com you don't just buy the game, you actually own it."
I purchased two games from GOG not only because I wanted to play some awesome classics, but also because I wanted to support a company that supports the rights of gamers. I hope that money wasn't misplaced and that GOG will prove me right by releasing versions of these games with a less restrictive EULA.
I hope this post will spark debate and discussion.

Whatever the EULA actually SAYS and what you do with it are probably two different things. Yeah you aren't supposed to transfer it, but how are they going to track it? Also, if you modify the programs for personal use, once again, how are they going to know? Those lines are in there for legal reasons. Do what you want with the files.

personal opinions apply below.
EULA is intact from original copy, and may or may not completely apply under GoG. Plus, you can put anything in a EULA and see the effects of silly click-wrap.
"By accepting this EULA, you agree to sacrifice you first born before their first year is out..."
I'd imagine most of the transfer/distribute part is along the lines that you can't duplicate and sell, or otherwise try and profit from it (edit: Or deprive the creator from profit, I'm fine with sharing though... to a point.). The exception being selling as a second-hand item.
Digital items should be treated differently than physical items. Actual transfers don't quite work since you are really only duplicating data, and unless we go down the road of authentication, proof that you no longer have possession is hard to do.
6.7 BILLION(!) people in the village nowadays, and unfortuantly, personal experience has shown very few are trustworthy.
Besides, it's damn cheap to buy a copy here to start with. Just how much do you think you will make from selling off your copy? (And I ask this as a serious question! I've not seen many people reply to it)
Alter, modify, or adapt the Program - is always unclear, especially with games that *support* mods. It's in the bag with protecting IP and so on.
Licensed, well yes. You own the physical medium, or the collection of data, but not the rights TO said data. Re: You buy Fallout from here, you own that copy, but have no rights (Authorship?) to Fallout itself.

Respect is a mutual thing. GOG has gone a long way by saying "Hey Folks, we trust you enough to give you broad access to the content with little to no supervision." Similarly, I'm respecting them by saying, "Sorry, your terms are unacceptable, lets see if we can work something else out," rather than simply pirating the game. I feel that taking any other stance simply feeds back into the claims by groups like EA that say "look, we need DRM because when we give our customers broad latitude, they don't play by the rules."
I doubt that, as it includes terms for some of the GPL and similarly open licenses further down that is specific to the GOG release, and at the top, it lays out how GOG is the company in question, and finally how at the end, the jurisdiction is the same as that for GOG as per the websites terms of service.
And such a condition would not be upheld, as it is unconscionable, for an illegal purpose (nullifying the contract) and probably overly vague, as I am a male and don't give birth, and may have multiple first borns by different women. However, in general, courts have ruled that EULAs are, in general, enforceable as legally binding contracts, most famously in ProCD, inc. v. Zeidenberg ([url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=961139)
Then GOG can certainly put in a provision such as "This file, and all derived media including, but not limited to, music, video, binaries, images, stories and dialogue are protected by US and international copyright law. Any unlawful use or distribution may be prosecuted by fines up to $250,000." rather than the absurdly restrictive license that prevents me from loaning this game to my friend.
I am sorry you have had that experience. The problem with that reasoning though is the logical conclusion is that there is a strong need for DRM technology. Ultimately, I disagree with you - I think that a copyright regime that provides recourse for companies that have had their creative goods violated (much as we can see in Canada), while not pre-protecting goods to the point of violating fair use rights (as we see in the WCT and DMCA in the US), coupled with a quality product that is backed up by a company dedicated to customer satisfaction will result in an opportunity for profit. There is no need to restrict what would otherwise be a user's fair use rights through an EULA.
Honestly, I probably won't sell it - I'm much more likely to give it away to a friend. However, if all my friends have already bought it or no one I know wants it, and I really don't think I'll play it again, what's unreasonable about me wanting to sell it for a few bucks on Amazon?
Again, I think you can do this is a less restrictive way
But I don't own the data, the data and a small subset of rights is licensed to me.
Lets go back to the book analogy. When I buy a book, I do in fact OWN it. I do not have the rights to authorship, but except for a small subset of activities outlawed by copyright laws, I am free to do whatever I want with it. If it has pictures, I can cut them out and paste them to my wall. I can blow them up at Kinko's to make posters. I can copy out certain sections that would be helpful to a research paper. However, if the book were only "licensed" to me, I would be limited to reading it (and as we are seeing in some of the more draconian licenses in things like Kindle, and probably soon, the iPhone, the ability to copy and paste may not even be taken for granted).
I don't expect to get rights of authorship, but I do want to own these games.

bocaJ: Actually, I think we most agree on the points here. My comments were both my own views and to get others talking.
I do agree, some things need to be clarified. I'm not up on US (or international for that matter.) law very much, but thanks for the link, gives me some reading and research to do.
Still, sorting it out would be nice.
I don't agree that my finding of lack of trust gives credit to DRM. I think DRM is a main cause in digital terms. Theft (Or whatever people choose to call it) is going to happen, and if you fight too hard the people are just going to rebel and push back.
You should be able to re-sell, but the digital ground is again, different.
Plus, I'm pretty much opposed to DRM, hence, one of the main reasons I am here :)
I don't see anything wrong with wanting to sell the game on Amazon, even for a $1.
But we still run into the problem that it is linked to your GoG.account (or other service), and the fact you still could have a copy on the HDD (Is it still yours, and how do we know you if you have it or not?).
Would this new person just get the file, or would GoG now provide the always available download service.
Technically, they still only provide that *one* copy, so what needs to be sorted is: is the game linked as a copy or to an individual/account?
The book is a good analogy, and is pretty much the same as I was talking about. I do believe, we should be able to do pretty much what we want with said data. We own it in one way, but not others.
In short, I think we mostly agree. Some changes could be good, but I think these are more at a publisher and industry level. Two groups very resistant to change.
I'm all for a "legal" and "simple" version of software EULA/law. A bunch of it we average citizens don't need to know or worry about.
edit: ack, too many "I" starting paragraphs and no quotes. I'll see about fixing that a little after food time.

Heh, if you want some more reading, I can also forward you my senior thesis :D
DRM is a vicious cycle, there is no doubt about it. I really am glad that GOG is working to break it, and I really hope no one gets me wrong here, I really want these folks to succeed (in fact, I think that the development of games as an art depends on GOG or a similar organizations success, but that's a longer post) and if anyone there is hiring people with Business and International Political Economy degrees, I'll drop you a resume. I just think that ownership rights are important too.
Ois - I see your point now about the link to my account - even after I've sold my copy, I can perpetually download it again. In essence, the primary copy is never transferred or destroyed as would be required by copyright law. I need to give this some thought; in the mean time however, I need to get some sleep; it's past 1:30AM here.
seriously, if you do want a lot me reading material, email me - tk421.away A T gmail
As a side point, is the proper acronym GoG or GOG?

I'll take up that offer, it always helps to have more information and viewpoints.
I've seen it as GoG and GOG.com. I like the way it looks (aesthetically?) as GoG, but will change in future if it is incorrect. Took me a while to write Firefox as Fx, instead of FF, but one can relearn.

This has been in almost all EULAs since the concept was introduced. It was routinely violated until online DRMs began to actually enforce it. The result was rampant casual piracy (no copy protection can prevent you giving your friend the original disc and allowing another user to fully enjoy the game without giving the developer a penny for the priviledge. Point out a fundamental difference between this and your friend downloading a warez copy in the first place). Perhaps if people were more willing to buy the games they want rather than wait for their friends cast-offs, we wouldnt have seen quite so many of the great developers go bust over the years, and perhaps online DRMs wouldnt be quite so restrictive.
Also. GOG are DRM free, but they still need to make money, and that means the EULA needs to forbid you from putting the games up for torrent or P2P.

But I did like the nice step-level effect. Much like the shrubberies.

I too like the shape of GoG, but it doesn't really make sense that way. It's "Good Old Games", not "God of Games", although I think you are still allowed to worship it if you want.

Yeah, and he wants (just like me) to legally own the programs. I didn't read the EULA because I trusted GOG, and now I'm not going to buy another game.

The concept of "transfer" implies that you are giving up your rights to the software and assigning them to someone else, not that you are giving someone a free copy of the game while continuing to use it yourself. There is no sale or piracy involved in a legitimate license transfer. Frankly, I don't understand why that would be specifically disallowed in the EULA, since nearly any court would overturn it, as long as the transfer was done in an otherwise legal manner.
Not true. Fair use says that you can modify the software you purchase for your own purposes, you just can't sell it or make it publicly available for free. This particular aspect of nearly all EULAs is a direct violation of established copyright law, though I honestly wouldn't have expected GOG to not have it in there.
The fact is, it is not that simple. Re-selling a game is not illegal; it does violate the EULA, but the EULA is not law, it is simply a civil contract. Since the law allows you to re-sell any legally purchased item you have, technically the EULA could be considered illegal.

Problem being, that we are not able to modify the game without violating the EULA. Even though the forums here hearily recommend modifying the game.
maybe they're just talking about the installer, I don't know, don't have the ability to check the EULA here at work.
But I just don't feel like I've bought the game.. especially after
check the pic for details.
Now, I don't hate GOG, they're still making available for play these old games, but I do feel lied to. I thought I owned the games.