because some don't require activation
it's all very disorganized. i'm not a fan myself, but you have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.

But... he said they have a "DRM Free" logo on some games but it isn't clear if any of those games require activation. How can they be marked as "DRM free" if they require activation? This is what I am confused about.

If they say "DRM free," they don't require activation (maybe i'll go buy the x-com pack just to verify this once and for all). Some of the games just require D2D's activation, which is limited--in theory--to three codes, but can be fixed by simply asking support for more. Some have both that and the publisher's DRM.

Let me explain ;) : you can say that thing X possesses the quality Y regardless of whether the thing X possesses the quality Y or not. There is no ontological shield which would prevent you from doing so.
>"This product is only available for purchase in the United States and Canada."
Boy, how I hate seeing this ><...

See, that makes perfect sense to me, but calling it "DRM free" then still possibly requiring activation... not so much.

What if it required a one time unlock? Say you buy the game and the exe you run is coded to connect to the server and download a replacement game exe, after that the game is as much yours as any you get on GOG?

Oh, well that's perfectly reasonable, I thought you meant a Monkey Island level overhaul.

That's still DRM as far as I am concerned. Its not necessarily bad DRM or invasive DRM, but it is still DRM and it shouldn't get the "DRM Free" title. Maybe "DRM Lite, the Diet Coke of DRM", but not "DRM Free".

"DRM Lite, the Diet Coke of DRM: Just one privacy invasion"

you can get antialiasing easily...

If Battlefront came to GOG... nah, too new.

there are newer games on gog

and MUCH better ones