Subset Games Forum

I bought FTL on GOG.com, and the installer presented me with an EULA that I wasn't willing to accept ("licensed not sold"). I've asked them for a refund, and I came here looking for an appropriate place to complain about the EULA... but I saw a forum post suggesting that FTL doesn't actually have an EULA. Is that true? (If so, I'll just buy it here... but I wonder why GOG.com added an EULA?)

EDIT for anyone else wondering: There's no EULA from Subset Games (the makers of FTL). If you buy the game through GOG.com, you'll get an EULA written by GOG in the installer. If you buy the game through the front page of ftlgame.com (which goes through Humble Bundle), you'll get an installer with no EULA in it (as well as a steam key).

Why didn't you agree with the EULA? FTL dev's aren't about to go and take the game from you.

Is this the first game you ever paid for?

Software is licensed, not sold. All EULA in the world are about licensing software.

Selling software means selling the source code and all the rights related to it, which can happen when a company sells its assets to another, or builds custom software for another. This is not the common case. The common case is that you buy a non-exclusive license to use the game; this has been the case for at least 20 years.

Much like boa13 said, the EULA is standard fare for games and other software. It doesn't matter much for most folk but for legal reasons it must be stated that when you buy a game you don't buy the rights to the game or it's code, art, etc.

It's exactly the same as buying a movie. You don't automatically buy the rights to the movie, just a copy to watch and keep. A DVD is a physicall copy but games and movies distributed digitally must include legalspeak that basically states you own a 'license' to watch/play/whatever but are not the owner of intelectual property.

That's what a license agreement is, and agreement between owner and user where the owner grants the user certain rights in exchange for a fee. By accepting it, you agree with the terms within. Usually that you understand what end-user rights are granted to you, what limitations and restrictions are placed on you by the owner, and accept that the owner shall not be responsible for damages caused improper use (Any of the points in EULAs can be argued in court if neccesary).

In simple terms you buy a game and play it, but it is neccesary to accurately define what 'buy' actually means, hence the EULA.

GoG is a digital software store, they have to include EULAs. They sign contracts with entities that hold the rights to games GoG sells. Some of those contracts make EULAs neccesary. In certain cases GoG owns the rights, and sometimes several entities do. It hardly matters to the buyer, but it's required by law to inform customers of such things.

Licensed, not sold should not be a deal breaker. All of us that 'own' FTL actually own licenses. FTL is truly owned by Subset Games and as such is not for sale. It doesn't matter wheter you buy the game from HumbleBundle, Steam or GoG, you will allways buy a license to use the software, which is exactly what you want just worded differently. There are different terms of each license though, but as far as playing the game is concerned, they don't matter.

UltraMantis wrote:Much like boa13 said, the EULA is standard fare for games and other software. It doesn't matter much for most folk but for legal reasons it must be stated that when you buy a game you don't buy the rights to the game or it's code, art, etc.

That's what copyright law is for. I've actually seen an EULA (not for a game - it was for some website-building software, I think) that simply reiterated the essence of copyright law - I don't mind that kind of an EULA, but such an EULA doesn't actually need that "THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT" stuff at the top, because it's true whether you agree to it or not - because copyright law says so. The GPL works on a similar principle.

UltraMantis wrote:It's exactly the same as buying a movie. You don't automatically buy the rights to the movie, just a copy to watch and keep. A DVD is a physicall copy but games and movies distributed digitally must include legalspeak that basically states you own a 'license' to watch/play/whatever but are not the owner of intelectual property.

When I buy a game, I expect to be an "owner of a copy", which gives me some basic rights such as the right to keep it as long as I like, the right to use it (which involves making a few copies, since that's how computers work, but those copies can never be owned by different people), and the right to sell/give my one copy to someone else (after which I won't have it anymore). Using "licensed, not sold", an EULA takes all that away, giving me instead the legal status of a renter (if the EULA is legally binding at all; courts have ruled both ways).

UltraMantis wrote:That's what a license agreement is, and agreement between owner and user where the owner grants the user certain rights in exchange for a fee. By accepting it, you agree with the terms within. Usually that you understand what end-user rights are granted to you, what limitations and restrictions are placed on you by the owner, and accept that the owner shall not be responsible for damages caused improper use (Any of the points in EULAs can be argued in court if neccesary).

Disclaimers of warranty are mostly fine (I understand how common frivolous lawsuits are nowadays), but I should really get a refund if the software is seriously messed up, or won't run on any machine that I have access to. A no-refunds policy isn't a deal-breaker, though.

The rights and restrictions do concern me, since they're generally much more restrictive than i.e. the rights you have to a book you buy (which is also governed by copyright).

UltraMantis wrote:In simple terms you buy a game and play it, but it is neccesary to accurately define what 'buy' actually means, hence the EULA.

In both plain English and legalese, "licensed, not sold" contradicts "bought" pretty thoroughly, so apparently you haven't "bought" the game at all in any ordinary sense.

UltraMantis wrote:Licensed, not sold should not be a deal breaker. All of us that 'own' FTL actually own licenses. FTL is truly owned by Subset Games and as such is not for sale. It doesn't matter wheter you buy the game from HumbleBundle, Steam or GoG, you will allways buy a license to use the software, which is exactly what you want just worded differently. There are different terms of each license though, but as far as playing the game is concerned, they don't matter.

How about a license that isn't a "legally binding contract" signed via an unskippable "I Agree" button? Because without that, the only contract is the "money for goods" exchange, governed by the local laws on what I can and can't do as an owner (but not a copyright holder).

Off the top of my head, I've bought at least two games from Humble Bundle that didn't have an EULA attached (The Binding of Isaac and Dungeon Defenders); I don't offhand remember whether any of the games in the three bundles I've bought DID have an EULA. An actual EULA is by no means a constant among games; the only constant is a legally obtained copy, as opposed to one obtained illegally (either through theft or a copyright violation).

Brilliand wrote:When I buy a game, I expect to be an "owner of a copy", which gives me some basic rights such as the right to keep it as long as I like, the right to use it (which involves making a few copies, since that's how computers work, but those copies can never be owned by different people), and the right to sell/give my one copy to someone else (after which I won't have it anymore). Using "licensed, not sold", an EULA takes all that away, giving me instead the legal status of a renter (if the EULA is legally binding at all; courts have ruled both ways).

I think it takes away only the right to sell the game or give it away. Because nothing can prevent you from even accidentally keeping a copy for yourself. If FTL was sold on a DVD i belive the EULA would be different as well. EDIT - Also games bought on GoG cannot be sold or given away.

Brilliand wrote:The rights and restrictions do concern me, since they're generally much more restrictive than i.e. the rights you have to a book you buy (which is also governed by copyright).

Mostly because of piracy or unfair use. Unless a EULA forbids it, what keeps you from selling copies or distributing via filehosting websites that pay your for your traffic? I would understand if the restrictions were inconveniencing, but digital distribution requires certain restrictions. Is there a specific one that you object to?

Brilliand wrote:

UltraMantis wrote:In simple terms you buy a game and play it, but it is neccesary to accurately define what 'buy' actually means, hence the EULA.

In both plain English and legalese, "licensed, not sold" contradicts "bought" pretty thoroughly, so apparently you haven't "bought" the game at all in any ordinary sense.

Well i admit it's not exactly the same, but it is the same as far as paying for, installing and playing the game goes. You can't sell a copy though. As far as GoG goes, you can download infinite amount of times, keep a copy infinetly, make an infinite number of copies as backup (for your own use only) and install the game an infinite amount of times. That is their usual practise, in this case it may be different. I haven't read the EULA.

Brilliand wrote:How about a license that isn't a "legally binding contract" signed via an unskippable "I Agree" button? Because without that, the only contract is the "money for goods" exchange, governed by the local laws on what I can and can't do as an owner (but not a copyright holder).

Honestly, i don't think what's written in EULAs matters too much. They might slip in that they now have a right to name my second child, it wont mean a thing. They do need a legal way to prosecute offenders though, i belive that they are just covering their asses with these restrictions.

I mostly agree with what you wrote. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me, is asking for a refund in order to purchase the same game from a different vendor because the EULA would be different. It seems unneccesary, but i don't know what your objections are, and you are certainly entitled to them. Has GoG replied to your question about why they added the EULA? My best guess would be because of their agreement with Subset Games, since GoG is a reseller in this case. Just guessing though.

Hello, I am a new member of this forum, Nice to meet you!

UltraMantis wrote:I think it takes away only the right to sell the game or give it away. Because nothing can prevent you from even accidentally keeping a copy for yourself. If FTL was sold on a DVD i belive the EULA would be different as well. EDIT - Also games bought on GoG cannot be sold or given away.

It depends on the EULA, of course. I think the most common boilerplate forbids selling/giving away, examining its inner workings, and modding. I recently read an EULA (I forget where) that even forbade using the game alongside any GPL-licensed program... I suppose the author might have been under the (mistaken) impression that someone could take away their copyright rights by combining their work with something licensed under the GPL.

UltraMantis wrote:Mostly because of piracy or unfair use. Unless a EULA forbids it, what keeps you from selling copies or distributing via filehosting websites that pay your for your traffic? I would understand if the restrictions were inconveniencing, but digital distribution requires certain restrictions. Is there a specific one that you object to?

Forbidding piracy in a contract honestly doesn't do much - it's already illegal under copyright law. I suspect the penalty for copyright violation is actually harsher than the penalty for breach of contract.

I just downloaded the installer again to read the license agreement that GOG put on FTL (they haven't given me the refund yet; I kinda wonder if this will get to the point of them outright refusing me the refund, which would basically render the EULA void in the few courts that take it seriously); it appears the only real restrictions appear in the first clause (no selling, lending, giving away or modifying), then there's a "no warranty" clause followed by three clauses reiterating that the agreement is super important and legally binding.

UltraMantis wrote:Well i admit it's not exactly the same, but it is the same as far as paying for, installing and playing the game goes. You can't sell a copy though. As far as GoG goes, you can download infinite amount of times, keep a copy infinetly, make an infinite number of copies as backup (for your own use only) and install the game an infinite amount of times. That is their usual practise, in this case it may be different. I haven't read the EULA.

I don't think they've actually put their normal practice in their EULA; by all appearances, this is their most ordinary, boilerplate EULA, and all it says is that I can use the program, but can't [big list of things that I boiled down to sell/lend/give/modify] it. Maybe their terms of use says something about it... Nope, that's the same deal; a big list of rights I don't have and responsibilities I do have, with a bunch of stuff about how super important and enforceable it is.

I can see how the "infinite number of copies" policy might make allowing sales of the software tricky; I can see how someone might cause a lot of trouble by selling their copy of the game, then downloading another, then selling that, etc. I don't think that would actually work, though, because the understood agreement is a specific amount of money for a copy of the game; at worst it could make things more confusing for the judge.

UltraMantis wrote:Honestly, i don't think what's written in EULAs matters too much. They might slip in that they now have a right to name my second child, it wont mean a thing. They do need a legal way to prosecute offenders though, i belive that they are just covering their asses with these restrictions.

The validity of EULAs is pretty questionable, but if EULAs aren't legally binding, then they aren't really managing to cover their ass at all, and the EULA only serves to annoy people like me; so I kinda think I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the EULA is enforceable and means exactly what it says.

UltraMantis wrote:I mostly agree with what you wrote. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me, is asking for a refund in order to purchase the same game from a different vendor because the EULA would be different. It seems unneccesary, but i don't know what your objections are, and you are certainly entitled to them. Has GoG replied to your question about why they added the EULA? My best guess would be because of their agreement with Subset Games, since GoG is a reseller in this case. Just guessing though.

I think the real reason I'm doing this isn't so much that I'm not OK with the specific terms (though I do dislike all four of the restrictions I mentioned), but more that I dislike EULAs in general, and am making a stand on principle. GOG's EULA would allow me to play the game, which is probably all I'm actually going to do, but I dislike the massive legalese that disagrees with the plain English description of the purchase, the extra terms sprung on me after the purchase is complete, the assertions that doing things unrelated to agreeing to the EULA (i.e. playing the game) actually constitute agreement... all reasons that the EULA might not be considered a valid contract in a court of law, but also reasons I'm offended that someone is even trying to do this stuff, and I'd like to solidly rebuff it, either by getting it clearly voided or by taking my money elsewhere.

I haven't actually asked GOG why they added the EULA; I didn't actually realize when I asked for the refund that it was them, not the makers of FTL, that added the EULA. However, now that I look again, the EULA says the agreement is between me and GOG, with no mention of Subset Games; so I guess I'll ask them about it.

So, essentially, you're here to cry about something you've "signed" several hundred times and only this time bothered to read.

#1: The game is $10 or less (it's been on sale lately) for a license (read permission) to "legally" play it (as in obtaining it not via piracy). By owning the license to play a legitimate copy of the game you are entitled to updated versions (v1.03.1 was released in the past week), good kharma and the you're bestowing an incentive for the two developers, Justin & Matthew, to make MORE cool games like this.....

#2: This game is too cool to be focusing on GOG's legal stuff. I have been gaming for 3 decades and nobody has ever denied me my license/permission to play a game that I purchased from them.

#3: Although the topic of EULAs makes for interesting reading and riveting debate, I'd seriously recommend playing this very affordable game (it was going for $5 recently) like the other many masses of us are doing. But if you want to discuss EULAs and copyright laws, that's cool too....

Welcome to the Forums and "being on the fence" (at least) of owning a license/permission to play such a superb game.
-Antony