Discuss: Is it legal/ethical to cliam that software 'requires' windows?

[Prefix100]

I'm interested to see what the community thinks of the term 'requires' and what that says when put on the back of software.

But first just a few ground rules,

This is a hypothetical discussion.
Have an open mind.
Avoid 'bad' flame.
This isn't about the present, more the future.


Right then,
Now look at the back of most software and you'll see that the software developer has deemed that it requires windows to run when this in fact may not be true.
Sure the developer may only support use of it on a windows platform, however the word support != requires. The software may run perfectly in software like WINE, and I personally believe for developers to claim that the software will only work on windows to be completely against business law. It is not only deceitful, but extremely bias.

The world will have to accept that Linux is here, and it is a real operating system that is, or will be, a serious competitor for the market.

Is it not at least unethical to claim that software will not work in any other OS? (which is essentially what they are saying.)

When wine is finished, or should I say if, I think this could be a very firm case against software developers.

Now, Discuss.

[Arkenzor]

There's an implicit (or explicit? I don't know) notion that when you buy software, you also buy a "promise" that it's going to work. Since you need a supported environment for that promise to be valid, you might say "requires" actually means "supports".

That's probably not what people mean with it, though. Guess it's simply easier to write "requires Windows" that a list of all the standards and services the program requires.


A very good approach software distributors could take, however, would be to design their software to work in Wine as well, so they can write on the back of the box "Requires Windows XP or better, or Wine v.X.X or greater".

[Barrucadu]

I would say it is both legal and ethical. The software requires Windows to run. WINE is am implementation of the Windows runtime environment, so when running something through WINE you are, in effect, running it through Windows.

[Prefix100]

@ Arkenzor
I agree, I'd love to see that. Why shouldn't developers do this? They could easily state that it isn't supported. I believe it to be very damaging to Linux for software to say so bluntly that it wont work.

@ Barrucadu
Yes, however, it is different to say requires windows runtime than to say windows operating system. In my opinion, if it works in Linux, stick it on the back of the box.

[Chame_Wizard]

don't forget the stupid license :lolflag:

[kidux]

I agree with Barrucadu. If you are running it in WINE, then you are running it in a Windows environment, though it may be highly stripped down and specialized. Now if a program that can be run in Linux by downloading a Linux client from their website and theay say it requires Windows, that could be unethical, but not illegal.

[aaaantoine]

This reminds me of how EVE Online doesn't support ATI graphics cards on the Linux platform, but I am able to run it on my integrated ATI hardware (though the performance is indeed terrible).

[sloggerkhan]

If they said 'requires microsoft windows api' or something weird like that it'd probably confuse people though I do see your point.

[aysiu]

It doesn't bug me if it requires the use of Wine, but it does bug me if, for example, I see a music player (Sandisk, Creative, etc.) say it requires Windows XP/Vista, when it works perfectly well for Mac and Linux, since it supports drag-and-drop (in other words, you don't need Windows Media Player 11 or any special software).

[Kevbert]

The claim should be that the software is compatible and has been tested to work on ******* - that's not to say it won't work with an emulator, but buyer beware.

[madjr]

@ Arkenzor
I agree, I'd love to see that. Why shouldn't developers do this? They could easily state that it isn't supported. I believe it to be very damaging to Linux for software to say so bluntly that it wont work.

@ Barrucadu
Yes, however, it is different to say requires windows runtime than to say windows operating system. In my opinion, if it works in Linux, stick it on the back of the box.

Some examples:

WoW, guild wars, Call of duty 4, photoshop cs2, itunes, internet explorer,safari, etc

they all work in wine, so they should all state they run in linux :)

:lolflag:

[happysmileman]

What about saying something like "Tested on Windows XP and Vista", "Will work on Windows XP or Vista" or "Supported on Windows XP or Vista".

That way you know they don't give a **** about Wine, but they aren't implying it won't work, just that they didn't test it and/or don't support it.

[Prefix100]

@kidux,
You sure it wouldn't be illegal?
I wish I knew someone who studied business law because I really feel its more than unethical.

@aaaantoine
The difference being, that some programs run just aswell in wine - if not better.

@aysiu,
wait theres software that works in Linux without the need for windows api that claims it requires windows..... thats ridiculous.

@Kevbert,
If it works in wine I don't see _why_ they dont say it.

@madjr,
ahahahaha,
sorry just the mental image of Microsoft's internet explorer saying it works in Linux - that would be awesome.

[aysiu]

@aysiu,
wait theres software that works in Linux without the need for windows api that claims it requires windows..... thats ridiculous. No, it's hardware.

[Prefix100]

ah yes fair point,

Hardware is the same issue, required != supported.

[kidux]

@kidux,
You sure it wouldn't be illegal?
I wish I knew someone who studied business law because I really feel its more than unethical.


Technically, it wouldn't be illegal or false advertising because you aren't getting the native Linux program if you have to go to their website to download the client after purchasing it. Unethical, yes, because it should state on the package (and it would be in their marketing best interest) that it will work in Linux if you perform the additional steps, in which case you are purchasing the license to use the product, nothing more. Neverwinter Nights is a good example. You can go to Bioware's site and download everything, but you still have to buy the license to use it, and they are up front about it.

If it states it requires Windows, and you are running it via WINE, there is nothing, IMO, that can be said against the company. WINE is an implementation of the Windows runtime environment, and many times uses Windows native .dll files to work correctly. You are basically hammering a square peg into a round hole by using it, and success depends on the pegs ability to be shaved in order to fit that hole.

[Forrest Gumpp]

Could the use of the word 'requires' be the thin end of the wedge with respect to an as yet undisclosed intention to bring the application in question under the umbrella of a Technical Protective Measure (TPM)?

If software packaging so marked is subsequently recognized as identifying that software as being under a Windows (ie. Microsoft) TPM, then that might render any attempt to run it under an emulator as an attempt to defeat a TPM. If once this was legally recognized as being the meaning of 'requires' in this context, it would seem that the advertising, indeed the very coding, of an emulation program could be claimed to be illegal.

Could this be what Microsoft is up to?

I believe every effort should be bent to branding this particular use of the word 'requires' as being intentionally misleading. Subsequently, if at all possible, a class action on behalf of all Linux users should be mounted against Microsoft and/or the third party software vendor(s) involved in this misleading advertising or product claim.

See this link with respect to the significance of a TPM: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4573096&postcount=184

[cprofitt]

The world will have to accept that Linux is here, and it is a real operating system that is, or will be, a serious competitor for the market.

Is it not at least unethical to claim that software will not work in any other OS? (which is essentially what they are saying.)

When wine is finished, or should I say if, I think this could be a very firm case against software developers.

Now, Discuss.

I would say that there is no issue with claiming that the product requires Windows or OSX or Linux or BSD if the product was designed to run on those platforms. Certainly some people might be able to get it to run on other platforms, but that does not mean a standard user can just load it up and go.

[cprofitt]

Could the use of the word 'requires' be the thin end of the wedge with respect to an as yet undisclosed intention to bring the application in question under the umbrella of a Technical Protective Measure (TPM)?

If software packaging so marked is subsequently recognized as identifying that software as being under a Windows (ie. Microsoft) TPM, then that might render any attempt to run it under an emulator as an attempt to defeat a TPM. If once this was legally recognized as being the meaning of 'requires' in this context, it would seem that the advertising, indeed the very coding, of an emulation program could be claimed to be illegal.

Could this be what Microsoft is up to?

I believe every effort should be bent to branding this particular use of the word 'requires' as being intentionally misleading. Subsequently, if at all possible, a class action on behalf of all Linux users should be mounted against Microsoft and/or the third party software vendor(s) involved in this misleading advertising or product claim.

See this link with respect to the significance of a TPM: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4573096&postcount=184

Well Apple is already doing that and no one has taken them to court yet.

[50words]

You have used two words--illegal and unethical--that do not seem to make a lot of sense here.

In order for this practice to be illegal, there would have to be a law prohibiting people from advertising software or hardware as "Windows only" when it actually works on another OS. I would be surprised if you could show me such a law.

The closest thing would be laws against deceptive advertising. However, I think you will find those laws are all designed to prohibit someone from advertising that a product will do something, when in fact it will not. What you are talking about is advertising that a product will not do something, when in fact it will.

In order for the practice to be unethical, there would have to be something ethically or morally wrong with advertising a product as more limited than it actually is. But what if the advertiser does not know whether the product works with Linux? Must they try their product in every OS out there?

All that said, I agree that software and hardware producers should be more accurate. Instead of saying a product "requires Windows," they should say "compatible with Windows XP and Vista," leaving compatibility more open-ended.

[Rhapsody]

I've got a keyboard here that says it requires Windows Me/2000/XP/Vista. The hotkeys may do, but I doubt the keyboard itself will fail to work under Linux. It's just a standard corded USB keyboard in most respects.

[kidux]

I've got a keyboard here that says it requires Windows Me/2000/XP/Vista. The hotkeys may do, but I doubt the keyboard itself will fail to work under Linux. It's just a standard corded USB keyboard in most respects.

I also have a gaming keyboard that "requires" Windows XP, but yanno what? All the keys work perfectly, without any setup on my part, in Ubuntu 7.10.

[Kujen]

This thread is a perfect example of why I hate being associated with the Linux community sometimes. What kind of silly question is "is it legal to claim software requires windows"? Honestly. You can complain all you want that more software should run in Linux (as it should, and will eventually), but to complain that companies shouldn't have the right to make their software require windows? Give me a break. And because something runs in wine is not a valid reason to put "runs on Linux" on the box. Running something in wine is not running it natively in Linux, so technically, it does NOT run on Linux.

Excuse my ranting if this topic was made to be funny, or not so serious. I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night and am easily irritated.

[cprofitt]

Excuse my ranting if this topic was made to be funny, or not so serious. I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night and am easily irritated.

+1 :: What you described is the negative reality distortion field that is associated with Linux.

[Prefix100]

@Kujen
This discussion is hypothetical, ie, it obviously isn't meant for the current position of the linux market, it is merely to discuss whether software developers are right in saying that the software requires windows.

I guess it will come down to what we consider windows and part of linux.

My point is, that to the average consumer, there are no alternatives to Microsoft Windows or Mac, and then those who know about linux don't see any advantage of using it because they don't want to have to look around for working software. However if software developers said that it works in wine etc aswell, the average consumer would realize the alternatives. Thats why I feel it should be fairly public.

[gsmanners]

So, the real problem is marketing? In my experience, developers don't get to make decisions about that.

[happysmileman]

I also have a gaming keyboard that "requires" Windows XP, but yanno what? All the keys work perfectly, without any setup on my part, in Ubuntu 7.10.

I have a keyboard with extra buttons for volume, calculator, homepage, email and a couple more I don't use and it works perfectly in linux, whereas half the buttons don't work in Windows XP, which is what it says it requires.

Oh yeah, did I mention it's a Microsoft keyboard, that's the bit that made me lol

[ellis rowell]

I have two programs which work with Wine or Windows, Digita Organiser worked on the Amiga, all versions of Windows and Wine. Nico's Commander works in the host machine in Wine but will not access the Internet to do Ftp work. I have not succeeded in getting anything else to work.

[tad1073]

@Kujen
My point is, that to the average consumer, there are no alternatives to Microsoft Windows or Mac, and then those who know about linux don't see any advantage of using it because they don't want to have to look around for working software. However if software developers said that it works in wine etc aswell, the average consumer would realize the alternatives. Thats why I feel it should be fairly public.

You answered your own question with this statement:


However if software developers said that it works in wine etc aswell, the average consumer would realize the alternatives.

Where as, there is probably some kind of an agreement in the developers contract with Microsoft so as to cause the consumer to believe that there are no other choices-which is a violation of the constitution, Freedom of Choice. And if it is possible prove that, there could one helluva class action.

I could go on and on about how Microsoft and developers are in each others pockets, especialy with Micrsoft and firewall/anti-virus software.

[kidux]

I have a keyboard with extra buttons for volume, calculator, homepage, email and a couple more I don't use and it works perfectly in linux, whereas half the buttons don't work in Windows XP, which is what it says it requires.

Oh yeah, did I mention it's a Microsoft keyboard, that's the bit that made me lol
Now that's funny. In order to get the buttons on this one, which is a Merc Stealth, to work in XP I had to install the software to run it from the manufacturer. When I installed Ubuntu, I didn't actually expect it to work, so it was a pleasant surprise when I hit the mute button and it actually muted, which led me to test the other buttons and they all work, even in games such as NWN, and they work the way they are marked. Perfection, I tell you.

You answered your own question with this statement:



Where as, there is probably some kind of an agreement in the developers contract with Microsoft so as to cause the consumer to believe that there are no other choices-which is a violation of the constitution, Freedom of Choice. And if it is possible prove that, there could one helluva class action.

I could go on and on about how Microsoft and developers are in each others pockets, especialy with Micrsoft and firewall/anti-virus software.
Umm, what? You're seriously not going to go with this conspiracy theory BS, are you? You wanna know the real reason developers make software that "requires" windows? It's because they get paid to. Microsoft, and Bill Gates specifically, is brilliant in their marketing. A bit underhanded, yes, but brilliant nonetheless. He, almost singlehandedly, brought computers into the home, not by making an easy to use OS, because we all know Linux and MacOS are just as easy to use once you learn how, but by leveraging his software into positions that would net him the most results. And as a result, dominates the IT industry, and software companies are there to make money, so if the Windows is the largest market share, it only makes good business sense to market your product to where it will get the most exposure and turn the highest profit. Was/is there some shady back room dealings, most indubitably, but to use a blanket statement such as you did is preposterous.

[cprofitt]

Where as, there is probably some kind of an agreement in the developers contract with Microsoft so as to cause the consumer to believe that there are no other choices-which is a violation of the constitution, Freedom of Choice. And if it is possible prove that, there could one helluva class action.

I could go on and on about how Microsoft and developers are in each others pockets, especialy with Micrsoft and firewall/anti-virus software.

You could go on? With proof?

It is one thing to use open source products and another thing to just hate on an OS or company.

Depending on how those developers created their software there may or may not be a class action lawsuit (I have never read the Visual Studio EULA). Perhaps it is in the EULA that if a developer uses Visual Studio that the software is created for Windows and not OS/2 or OS X; much less Linux.

Even if you say the developers are in cahoots with Microsoft that does NOT violate the Constitution and 'freedom of choice' is not something guaranteed.

[drascus]

Well it is unethical in general to write proprietary software so I don't really care if they advertise it works for windows only. I think it makes sense actually that they say this. It says well this software which is unethical and takes away your freedom will only work with a platform that has the same ethic.

[kidux]

You could go on? With proof?

It is one thing to use open source products and another thing to just hate on an OS or company.

Depending on how those developers created their software there may or may not be a class action lawsuit (I have never read the Visual Studio EULA). Perhaps it is in the EULA that if a developer uses Visual Studio that the software is created for Windows and not OS/2 or OS X; much less Linux.

Even if you say the developers are in cahoots with Microsoft that does NOT violate the Constitution and 'freedom of choice' is not something guaranteed.

Thank you! I meant to say something about the "Freedom of choice" but got sidetracked by his other ramblings.

[Dekkon]

No, in the US its a free market and no one is forced to use Microsoft's products. There will always be alternatives.

[kidux]

Well it is unethical in general to write proprietary software so I don't really care if they advertise it works for windows only. I think it makes sense actually that they say this. It says well this software which is unethical and takes away your freedom will only work with a platform that has the same ethic.

I'm sorry, that's like saying it's unethical to build an engine that requires gas. A software company that designs an app specifically for a certain OS is not unethical nor infringing on any freedoms.

[Nathan_M]

"Requires Windows XP or better"

Well this statement obviously includes Linux/Wine. ;)

[drascus]

I'm sorry, that's like saying it's unethical to build an engine that requires gas. A software company that designs an app specifically for a certain OS is not unethical nor infringing on any freedoms.

I simply disagree please see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives." (Richard Stallman)

It is really more like building an engine that is illiegal for the owner to understand how that engine works. Its like if toyota build a car and required you to buy only their gas and if you tried to fix the car yourself called you a pirate and threatend you with a lawsuit.

[cprofitt]

I simply disagree please see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives." (Richard Stallman)

It is really more like building an engine that is illiegal for the owner to understand how that engine works. Its like if toyota build a car and required you to buy only their gas and if you tried to fix the car yourself called you a pirate and threatend you with a lawsuit.

Um...

I think the analogy is a little off.

Microsoft allows users to use any hardware that a vendor supplies a driver for (non-Toyota parts / gas)
Microsoft allows users to use Firefox (non-Toyota parts gas)
I think if you took the Toyota engine apart and put it back together again with plastic pistons (your choice) that Toyota would likely not 'honor' their warranty.If I missed the target of your analogy please feel free to correct me.

[kidux]

I simply disagree please see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives." (Richard Stallman)

It is really more like building an engine that is illiegal for the owner to understand how that engine works. Its like if toyota build a car and required you to buy only their gas and if you tried to fix the car yourself called you a pirate and threatend you with a lawsuit.

Forgive me, because I will probably regret anything I am saying right now tomorrow (wine does that, LOL!) but the software developers aren't making software that you can only run on THEIR OWN OS, but the most prolific OS on the market. That is not unethical or illegal. Car manufacturers don't required you to use only their gas, or take it to their mechanics ( htough working on it yourself would sure, and rightly so, void any warrant you had with them). They simply state to use unleaded gas, as that is the most prolific fuel. If Linux was the most popular OS, then software companies, who are interested in making money while providing you with a service or good that benefits you, would make their products compatible with Linux. It's all about supply and demand. That is the beauty of capitalism, it responds to the demands of the majority.

[drascus]

PrivateVoid: thanks I do think you missed the point I was trying to make a little.

Microsoft allows users to use any hardware that a vendor supplies a driver for (non-Toyota parts / gas)

I was relating a cars parts to a computers Software not hardware maybe not the best Idea on my part. one of the key points you did make here is that the Vendor has to supply the driver. This I would hope be an open driver that the user would have control over but is not always the case which is unfortunate. Although happily things are slowly chaning in the hardware driver field where open drivers are becomming more common.


Microsoft allows users to use Firefox (non-Toyota parts gas)
While this is true Its not equivalent to giving the users freedom. you merely have freedom over that one particular program. a car analogy I suppose (just because thats what we are running with) is well you can buy new tires and change seat covers. maybe you could swap in a new radio. But they are saying if Toyota (MS) provided it you are not allowed to touch it, Study it, Change it, Or even just independantly varify what that part is really doing in your car. In fact if you lift your hood you don't see an engine just a black box with a big restricted label on it. That's what it would be like if they did the same thing with your car.

I think if you took the Toyota engine apart and put it back together again with plastic pistons (your choice) that Toyota would likely not 'honor' their warranty.
Yes your probably right but you didn't need to buy the warrenty to buy the car in the first place. however its illegal to use their software without agreeing to the terms of their EULA. and of course you can still take the engine apart and put it back togther. it doesn't matter if you don't sign or agree to the MS license agreement they make it so you can't find out how it really works or what its doing. In that way you are always under the strict control of the developers and don't really have freedom.

[drascus]

software companies, who are interested in making money while providing you with a service or good that benefits you

Well they will get no demand from me and other Free Software supporters. There is no benifit worth loosing freedom over. don't get me wrong your intitled to your opinion so If you want to have proprietary Software and you want to get them to port to linux fine. But I will continue to fight proprietary software every chance I get.

[djsroknrol]

I'm interested to see what the community thinks of the term 'requires' and what that says when put on the back of software.

But first just a few ground rules,

This is a hypothetical discussion.
Have an open mind.
Avoid 'bad' flame.
This isn't about the present, more the future.


Right then,
Now look at the back of most software and you'll see that the software developer has deemed that it requires windows to run when this in fact may not be true.
Sure the developer may only support use of it on a windows platform, however the word support != requires. The software may run perfectly in software like WINE, and I personally believe for developers to claim that the software will only work on windows to be completely against business law. It is not only deceitful, but extremely bias.

The world will have to accept that Linux is here, and it is a real operating system that is, or will be, a serious competitor for the market.

Is it not at least unethical to claim that software will not work in any other OS? (which is essentially what they are saying.)

When wine is finished, or should I say if, I think this could be a very firm case against software developers.

Now, Discuss.

Labeling a product's "requirements", no matter what they might be, is an important part of any product. I equate it to "caution - contents hot" labels on McDonald's coffee cups. It's called instruction. It takes different levels of directions depending on the complexity of the product.

Now 90%+ use MS products on their PC's and the only other "white meat" most of them know is Mac. The product manufacturer's are only instructing the end-user on how to use the product.

I can understand why they wouldn't promote another operating system such as Linux in a product's list of requirements. Why should they?.....what's in it for them?

It is nothing short of a crying shame if it's possible to run it, in say, crossover or wine, and not listing it on the side panel requirements. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that they're doing something unethical by not listing that fact.

To most of the manufacturers out there, Linux is the unknown and uncertain territory. They're going for the familiar and milking the masses

Just my .02 from the desert.

[kidux]

Well they will get no demand from me and other Free Software supporters. There is no benifit worth loosing freedom over. don't get me wrong your intitled to your opinion so If you want to have proprietary Software and you want to get them to port to linux fine. But I will continue to fight proprietary software every chance I get.

As is your right, and I commend you for that. The only proprietary software I use is mainly games, but I do have a virtual XP machine for my class work. For everything else I use Linux, as I prefer the stability and logical ease of use provided with it.

[kidux]

Just my .02 from the desert.

I feel you man. It was he desert that made me really switch over to Linux. How much longer you got over there?

[tad1073]

Umm, what? You're seriously not going to go with this conspiracy theory BS, are you? You wanna know the real reason developers make software that "requires" windows? It's because they get paid to. Microsoft, and Bill Gates specifically, is brilliant in their marketing. A bit underhanded, yes, but brilliant nonetheless. He, almost singlehandedly, brought computers into the home, not by making an easy to use OS, because we all know Linux and MacOS are just as easy to use once you learn how, but by leveraging his software into positions that would net him the most results. And as a result, dominates the IT industry, and software companies are there to make money, so if the Windows is the largest market share, it only makes good business sense to market your product to where it will get the most exposure and turn the highest profit. Was/is there some shady back room dealings, most indubitably, but to use a blanket statement such as you did is preposterous.

Yes I believe in conspiracies, especialy w/Microsoft. But I have to agree with you that Bill Gates has cornered the market. But the freedoms and privacy you have to give up to use his software, plus the fact that you can not change how it works is not worth, what $300/$400 dollars that vista costs. If I pay that much for something I damn well better have free reign over it.

Hell, Microsoft has already violatd the agreement that they have w/ EU or whatever it is called.


You could go on? With proof?

It is one thing to use open source products and another thing to just hate on an OS or company.

Depending on how those developers created their software there may or may not be a class action lawsuit (I have never read the Visual Studio EULA). Perhaps it is in the EULA that if a developer uses Visual Studio that the software is created for Windows and not OS/2 or OS X; much less Linux.

Even if you say the developers are in cahoots with Microsoft that does NOT violate the Constitution and 'freedom of choice' is not something guaranteed.

My statement was just another conspiracy theory. I don't dis-like Microsoft, I just don't like their business tactics. And the fact that they are the Goliath of the software industry, well we all know what happened to Goliath.

What I think should happen is; the software vendor should give the good product to the Open Source market and give the junk to Microsoft.

I am not talking about the EULA, I am talking about the software vendors contract with Microsoft.

The only thing I use my computer for is internet/e-mail, job searches and watching movies and listen to cd's, and maybe type the occasional letter.
Besides, I could care less one way or the other. If I can get something for free that does what I need it to do, then why pay for it.


"The American Dream that the U.S. is selling is not the one I want to buy."

[50words]

Where as, there is probably some kind of an agreement in the developers contract with Microsoft so as to cause the consumer to believe that there are no other choices-which is a violation of the constitution, Freedom of Choice. And if it is possible prove that, there could one helluva class action.

I don't think you have read the Constitution.

[gsmanners]

In answer to the OP, there is no question that stating requirements is legal. In fact, it is more questionable on a legal basis to *not* include OS requirements. For a more useful and apt answer, you really should discuss the question with a lawyer.

As for ethics, it depends on what you mean by "ethics." This is a very subjective term, usually used to describe the lesser of two evils. In a hostile corporate environment, non-free software is sometimes necessary to protect the privacy of customers and to more securely handle valuable data. See http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-main#ntoc11 for an example of what I'm talking about here.

[50words]

In answer to the OP, there is no question that stating requirements is legal. In fact, it is more questionable on a legal basis to *not* include OS requirements. For a more useful and apt answer, you really should discuss the question with a lawyer.

As for ethics, it depends on what you mean by "ethics." This is a very subjective term, usually used to describe the lesser of two evils. In a hostile corporate environment, non-free software is sometimes necessary to protect the privacy of customers and to more securely handle valuable data. See http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-main#ntoc11 for an example of what I'm talking about here.

That has nothing to do with security. Their concern is imperfect duplication of the experiment. They don't want someone manipulating the formula and then running around saying they solved the problem.

[tad1073]

I don't think you have read the Constitution.

Neither has any one else because we let our government and cooperation's violate it all the time.

[50words]

Neither has any one else because we let our government and cooperation's violate it all the time.

Really? Give an example or two with cites to the constitutional provision violated.

[caravel]

The term "required" refers to the platform that is needed to run the software within the supported spec. It is mainly used for litigative and support reasons.

For example the product may work in Wine or it may work on another OS but vendors will never support this unless they'd actually sat down and tested it, otherwise they would enter a support nightmare trying to talk users through installing software/hardware on any one of the thousands of different Linux distros running different version of Wine. The "required" is basically there as a safeguard against "the box said this would run on Linux so why won't it run on OMGWTF Linux 26.4343.321a?!?! I want a refund!!!" etc, etc. It's easy for developers to develop for one platform. Even ID software provide no support for the Linux binaries for their games and there is no mention of Linux compatibilty on the game box or system requirements.

[tad1073]

Really? Give an example or two with cites to the constitutional provision violated.

To be honest with you I really can't but I just know that things of this nature do happen.

[ellis rowell]

I have two programs which work with Wine or Windows, Digita Organiser worked on the Amiga, all versions of Windows and Wine. Nico's Commander works in the host machine in Wine but will not access the Internet to do Ftp work. I have not succeeded in getting anything else to work.

Having installed v8.04 I now find that Wine is running these two applications AND Nico's Commander is now working the ftp OK.

[ubername]

well, I suppose a legal position could be 'What damage has been done which needs redress?' I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the lack of info that you could run some software would entice a court to feel that you had in some way suffered (in English Law anyway)

From the ethical point of view I think there is nothing to answer. Suppose I had developed an OS myself, which could run the said software, but I hadn't made it widely known/ available, how could the other software developers know about it? Is it that the case for ethics depends upon the marketing skills of other OS's?

[scouser73]

Coming from a Windows background into Linux, I see it like this.

There are so many Linux variants that perhaps software developers cannot begin to distinguish between what is a popular Linux O/S and what is not.

I know that there has to be variations of Linux to meet peoples needs for certain programs.

There really should be no requirement for software to work in a Windows environment, as open source has been around for a long time now and developers of software that is available on Windows should adapt to the ever changing needs of people & of businesses.

Marketing also comes into this I feel, I've never seen an advert for the latest Linux operating system in the papers or on the T.V, but yet it is widely known to many people outside of the "Windows mindset".

Can there ever be a day when a software company will develop something that can work on Linux (all variants), and windows?

I think this should be addressed in a more formal way of a poll, then send the statistics to all software companies and make them aware that people who use Linux would like to see their (Software developers)
programs also widely available for Linux

[fatality_uk]

Is it legal/ethical to cliam that software 'requires' windows?
YES and YES. Of course it is.

[Speedwiz7770]

Well some software now-a-days does say that it will work under Wine or the like. Take a look at UTorrent. When your at the download page, It will say at the top "For Wine, Windows, and Mac". Mind you, UTorrent isn't a paid piece of software, but it does show that Wine and Linux are becoming more accepted in the development community.

[geoken]

So you want people to test their app under every specific situation so they can put it on the box? So they're supposed to test every version of SUSE to make sure they don't accidentally put SUSE 8 or greater when SUSE 7 will work? Are they supposed to compile the latest nightly of ReactOS to see if it;s compatable? And when they test WINE compatability are they supposed to list every version of WINE since new versions off WINE sometimes have compatability regressions which are later fixed in an even newer versions.

You realize not every proprietary software maker is the stereotypical, monolithic corporation. Many apps are developed by small groups of developers who not only write the code, but own the company, handle marketing (website, etc.), and do everything else.

[aysiu]

So you want people to test their app under every specific situation so they can put it on the box? So they're supposed to test every version of SUSE to make sure they don't accidentally put SUSE 8 or greater when SUSE 7 will work? Are they supposed to compile the latest nightly of ReactOS to see if it;s compatable? And when they test WINE compatability are they supposed to list every version of WINE since new versions off WINE sometimes have compatability regressions which are later fixed in an even newer versions.

You realize not every proprietary software maker is the stereotypical, monolithic corporation. Many apps are developed by small groups of developers who not only write the code, but own the company, handle marketing (website, etc.), and do everything else.
I think some people are proposing that the phrasing is off.

Designed to work with Windows, Tested to work with Windows, and Compatible with Windows are phrases that more accurately describe the situation.

Requires Windows makes it sound as if the software absolutely will not work on anything other than Windows. I agree that phrasing is off, but I've learned to take all such "requirement" information with a grain of salt. To the average consumer, it doesn't make a difference anyway, since she'll be using either Windows or Mac.

[xuCGC002]

ahahahaha,
sorry just the mental image of Microsoft's internet explorer saying it works in Linux - that would be awesome.

There was a UNIX version made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oe-Ie5-unix.jpg), does that count?

On topic, it is ethical/unethical to some standards. For example, a MP3 player that I bought states "Only works in Windows 98SE and up" actually works on Linux and Mac, since it appears on all three as a removable disk. That is unethical.

But certain programs say "Requires Windows XP" on the back, but can run fine in WINE, make sense, as WINE is a Windows runtime emulator.
That's ethical.

[fatality_uk]

And if I BUY ANY software, oh lets say Adobe CS3, run it under WINE and have a problem with the software, a bug for instance. Guess the FIRST thing that Adobe customer support will say if you tell them your running it under WINE.

The reasons companies make statements like that is to indemnify themselves because they usually test exclusively under Windows and as such, they will NOT offer support/cover under Linux

[ubername]

There was a UNIX version made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oe-Ie5-unix.jpg), does that count?

On topic, it is ethical/unethical to some standards. For example, a MP3 player that I bought states "Only works in Windows 98SE and up" actually works on Linux and Mac, since it appears on all three as a removable disk. That is unethical.

But certain programs say "Requires Windows XP" on the back, but can run fine in WINE, make sense, as WINE is a Windows runtime emulator.
That's ethical.

I'm no fan of MS, but in what way is it unethical to state that 'it only works in ABC'? It may be factually wrong, it may be disingenuous, it may be many things, but I think it is not unethical. It could be down to ignorance.

And what's the big deal anyway? If you use a Unix derivative you are probably way better at getting stuff to work than the average punter. I don't believe that putting a note on the packaging of various accessories will make anybody change OS, if that is the intention.