I think the logical next step is to normalize and simplify EULAs much like they have done with most open-source licenses.

Basically, the law comes up with a fixed set of licenses (or if you want to follow the creative commons model, a limited set of license properties) that become well known and understood.

Anybody can use one of those licenses. If they want to use a new license that is not in the pre-existing list, they need to make their case in court and get the new license format enshrined by the law.

Of course, it would put some limitations on the freedom businesses have to set terms for users, but I think its a fair tradeof for clarity and sanity. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to create law by themselves or pretend that terms they set are enshrined in law when they aren't.

Just use Linux then. If you don't redistribute copyleft code (which is the case for the vast majority of application-layer use cases), you can pretty much do what you want.

And even if you do, the only requirement is that you share your code modifications to the copyleft code alike if you distribute them.

One could see the above as an obstacle to commercialization, but that didn't stop Google's Android (yes, technically, you could fork the Android code and compete with Google, but best of luck with that... Google understands that the Android code is a necessary requirement for the platform to run, but it is not the key differentiator that makes the platform valuable).

quick question, though. does gOg's EULA belong on gOg?

You are sweating theoretical stuff too much and ignoring the reality of GOG releases, in my opinion.

You download DRM-free versions of games here, meaning that as long as you have the .exe file for installing the game, you will have access to it for a lifetime. You know this already, of course!

At that point, the fact that some EULA exists that may or may not THEORETICALLY revoke your access doesn't matter. The publisher just cannot take away that .exe from you. There is no ifs and buts, it's just how it is. You are talking about a theoretical problem that practically does not exist.

Not sure if I am getting my message across here.

I think you should relax about stuff that doesn't actually affect you. In this case it's just computer games, but if you obsess about things this much in the real world, you'll end up unhappy. Not saying research or thinking is bad, just try not to worry about non-problems too much, or even about problems that you yourself cannot practically solve even if you have a theoretical solution.

I think EULAs are ok. I know where I draw my line and i think publishers and devs are within my own moral bubble to say they are entitled to what portion of their product they are selling you even if you have to accomodate more than that portion to enjoy it. in the end, if you aren't willing to accept EULA's you're pretty much on the road towards demanding devs respect your PC power consumption goals or prefered FOV or making content color blind accessible or dyslexia accessable. not to get tangential or anything, but is there really even anything in a typical EULA that says anything more than the content of the game is only intended to be experience within the confines of the game? seems like a reasonable ask that if you attend a magic show that you are not allowed to be backstage to view the secrets.

I think you are right that EULAs on GOG are not affecting us much. However, I think that EULAs overall, are. Not understanding your rights clearly is fertile ground for abuse.

As a software developer who has to tackle hard problems and make the solutions I create for them as orderly and maintainable as possible, I take affront to needless complexity in human-designed systems, especially when it is in bad faith (and for EULAs, I think it largely is).

It annoys me that when you buy a whole swath of products, there is so much ambiguity about where your rights begin and end. Plus I see a different path to this, both in the traditional laws of ownership covering most physical goods by default and in the relatively constrained number of open-source licenses for software projects where you see the name of the license and you have a quick automatic grasp of what it entails.

You're right that I can't change the situation directly, but I can at the very least illustrate how insane this is and how there already exists much better ways to go forward that are within our grasp.

I like this quote of yours a lot. I also hate needless complexity in human-designed systems, so I am on your side!! :)