But since there is no DRM on the game files you can install and patch the game on a PC that has internet connection and copy the modified files over the original files on a PC that doesn't have internet. If it had SecuROM the game exe would detect that it wasn't activated on the second machine and prevent you from playing.
I see it only as a way of delivering the content like logging on your GOG.com account. After you get said content there is nothing preventing you from transferring it elsewhere.
I guess different people will have different opinions but personally I don't have a problem with it. I admit that stand-alone patches would be more convenient for people without internet but for people with an stable connection it really doesn't matter.

Because technically only vanilla version released on GoG will be 100% DRM-free, the other version will require to "activate/register" the game on CDP server to obtain the updates.

Of course it seems, based on the info we have and what you just said, that it's possible to backup the install folder after patching and copy that to any computer, but it's still sloppier that a real installer.

An easy way to avoid that would be it the GoG version installer was updated to the latest patch from time to time.

This was peoples could just re-download from time to time the GoG version and always have a fully DRM-free up to date version. (a little like what happens with all other GoG games when they are patcher)

Do you know if something like is (or could be) envisaged ?

For modified files there is Windows Search and there are other tools for modified registry entries or maybe the update program will list which files where modified like many of them do. I didn't say that it wouldn't be tedious but it can be done. Alternatively you can just copy the whole game folder over LAN or with a USB drive and be done with it.
My point is that calling the update program DRM is silly because it protects nothing, it only serves to determine if you registered your game. If you want a convenient way to update the game then register the game and let it update itself, otherwise wait for a stand-alone patch whenever it will become available.

It doesn't have to be effective to be DRM. SecuROM means nothing because I can just use a fixed exe, but SecuROM is still DRM. I am sure the patches for Witcher 2 will be available separately on torrent sites the same as they are for Steamworks games and Impulse games, but that doesn't mean it's not an attempt at DRM.

Well, apparently GoG went by the third approach and that decision kind of sucks. Even if people can back up downloaded patches, it still is restrictive - my definition of DRM-free is a simple one: When a pirate isn't limited in any way when playing a pirated copy, it's DRM-free. Yes, you can murder me for that definition for all I care, but when a pirate is limited when playing pirated copy, it means there are limitations in place.

And serial-based patches ARE a DRM, for I really, really doubt Witcher II will be bug-free on release. I hope that you can at least make a back-up copies for downloaded patches (installers I mean)

Wow... Are you talking to me? Aren't you responding to someone else? On a different forum? In a different galaxy? Because I'm quite sure I've never said anything like that.

Yes, because it is. I have never said it's my idea of a good game, nor did I say that I'm going to steal it, thank you very much, I have Witcher preordered.

Since DRM was devised to restrict and stop piracy, when there are no means to do that, it is DRM-free. Simple as that. What's wrong with it?

precisely. I'm glad we're finally on the same page.

I see what Fenixp is saying, and I have to say I agree with it. It is simple, but it's also logical. As he said, DRM is designed to stop/hinder pirates. If there are measures in place to do that (such as a serial code to obtain patches), then the game is not DRM-free.

I look on this move as very similar to what Stardock was spouting about their games. They went on and on about how gamer friendly they are and how they don't use DRM on their games (because pirates don't matter), yet you can't get patches without registering the game and using their Impulse client. There is very little difference between what Stardock does and what's happening with TW2. Granted, there's no client to install with TW2, but it's a DRM measure, plain and simple.

I'm not saying this is an onerous DRM scheme, but as Kismet noted in his post, it's disingenuous at best to say the game is comletely DRM free.

I disagree. DRM is designed to make legal gamers life miserable. Pirates are not hindered by it in any way.

As far as i'm concerned the automatic update system in Witcher 2 doesn't bother me at all. Call it DRM if you like but please be aware that we live in reality haunted by ubisoft-like DRM. If only all publishers would realase their games like CD-Projekt does the world would be a better place.
Please take that into consideration and stop bitching.

Oh it would, it's just one of the most important points of the game on GoG is DRM-free, and that is ... questionable.

Honestly, I don't really care about registering a serial to get patches and DLC the game, as long as it doesn't require an internet connection and log in when I boot the game. That's what I have an problem with.

Yes it is, but is it really that inconvenient? Besides i'm confident that after some time the possibility of downloading a patch as a file will be provided to us. Have a little faith.

Oh I don't mind at all, it'll just spread some bad rep for no good reason.