What a bunch of pathetic whiners.

Thats also what I think. They should be thankful that they're not going to jail for helping piracy.
If they want to waste time trying to process GOG, go ahead, but they're not going to win.

As long as there is NO additional viruses; NO security holes opened; and NO additional malware coming from the cracked-DRM version of the game - I think it's fine if both the developers and publishers agree to release such a version for sale.
It's THEIR game, not the hackers' game.

I can see the point of these people. Companies (either retailers or publishers) make all kind of accusations, name calling etc against the "pirates". Then when they have a problem making a game work and sell it, they use the same crack from the "pirates".
I am not saying bravo to whoever created the cracks, but I do see their point, it makes sense.

Good lord. We really need just a big evolutionary atom bomb.

But shouldn't one be honored to have his/her work featured in an official game release?
Couldn't GOG just have edited some strings with a resource editor to avoid the matching of hashes and being pointed at all together if they really wanted to hide their deed?
I think the blame should be directe at the publisher, man are they so cheap they can't afford paying one of the programmers who worked on/was involved in the game process for one day to remove all traces of the protection from the source code?
Maybe they just throw all their source-code away or something...
Otherwise, I really don't care.

I bet that by page 14, I still won't care.

..."The Scene"? What losers.
God knows "Squall Leonhart" is mortified. Who gives a shit?

Given that I've been asked for the disc on several occasions (the game still loads after several attempts to get the message to piss off) on some GOGs, I think that's a far more valid concern too.

"Oh noes! GOG is stealing the code we stole to help others steal games!"
The horror. The horror.

Or get a legitimate job with GOG to strip DRM. Problem solved. /thread

You know, I'm a lazy ass who doesn't like to repeat himself, so I'll just paste relevant bits from IRC. (Some bits removed due to irrelevance)
<Keph> you know, I kinda liked The Scene, especially back in the day
<Vagabond-> Capitalized, eh?
<Keph> those shitfucks give it a bad name, seriously
<Vagabond-> Wait, is that an actual name?
<Keph> well yeah, since it's proper name and all
<Vagabond-> Wow.
<Keph> as in, Demoscene and all that
<Keph> shit used to be pretty sweet, last I've heard of it was, huh, kkrieger and that other thing that studio did
<Arkose> if you follow the recent scene releases there's a lot of bitching between groups
<Keph> Arkose, yeah. And the demos that go with cracks nowadays are all shittastic
<Keph> basically, you get the key generated while some retarded chiptune's farting in the background
<Keph> lame
<Arkose> plus they are separate so you won't see it if you don't specifically choose it
<Keph> yeah
<Arkose> (not that I liked the idea of crack intros attached to games anyway)
<Keph> well yeah, but some used to be separate back in the day, too
<Keph> like, all the intro.coms
<Keph> man, those were the days
<Keph> and those crying whiny-ass emo fagballs give all that a bad name

The only people who should complain about the inclusion of their work, with commercial releases, are the DOSBox team (and they have been vocal, since DOSBox has been included with commercial releases, thus violating the EULA of DOSBox). If you are a hacker that made a crack to circumvent DRM or other copy protection methods feels victimized by the commercial use of their cracks, they should consider it a form of universal irony or karma.

I find it funny when they wonder if the publishers know that GOG are using methods similar to cracks to remove the DRM. Of course they know. They'll be the ones giving them permission to remove the DRM anyway they can.

DOSBox can be commercially distributed (the GPL allows and encourages this) as long as the source is included and the authors credited. The problems start when a company modifies DOSBox (to add DRM or something) and doesn't bundle the source changes for it.

You are correct sir. I misunderstood a portion of the EULA/GPL. I know that Valve and iD had been using DOSBox without crediting the DOSBox team, and that caused a minor controversy, but I was not aware that it was because of a lack of credit. Thank you for the correction.