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,

1. This is a hypothetical discussion.
2. Have an open mind.
3. Avoid 'bad' flame.
4. 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

[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 Windoze - that's not to say it won't work with an emulator, but buyer beware.