amok: before I posted I tried to think about a law which it is impossible to break, and I cannot think of any. the reason for this, I assume, is that we do not need laws against impossible actions. we only need laws against possible actions. happy to be proven wrong, off course, I would really like to know laws against impossible actions.

Syphon72: I said Technically, you can resell them. Which is true.
Never said it was legal by the way.

dtgreene: Not when the thing being made illegal is actually impossible.
(I'm pretty sure there are laws like that in the books somewhere.)

Telika: blahblahblah

amok: before I posted I tried to think about a law which it is impossible to break, and I cannot think of any. the reason for this, I assume, is that we do not need laws against impossible actions. we only need laws against possible actions. happy to be proven wrong, off course, I would really like to know laws against impossible actions.

UhuruNUru: his original statement, was you own GOG Games, now that's devolved down to "… but Piracy" My point has been made.

Telika: Well, depending on your interpretations, there's all laws about magical-religious stuff (spellcating, consorting with the devil, offending gods, etc), which very objects are unlikely to be real. Of course these often condemn the practices which effects are hypothetical (like the act and intent of casting a spell even if the spell isn't a real thing, the act of disobeying a god even if the god is not a real thing, etc) but also sometimes acts and intents that are absurd by themselves (think witch trials about intercourse with the devil, or just witchcraft accusations based on a victim's bad luck and their suspicion of his neighbor).

There's certainly laws that are unreasonable or downright impossible not to break (when the complexity of legal systems that ensure people are always in a double bind, or laws that are broad enough to be applied on everyday life - these systems usually still function because there's some common sense in the use, function and application of laws, but in dictatorships they serve the power by allowing a suddenly arbitrarily rigid interpretation of them to be used against any targeted citizen at any point). And witchcraft laws can often be used as such, as witch trials sare designed to make it impossible to disprove that you didn't do the impossible thing you're accused of. But given that said thing is impossible, you could also, legally, argue that all which trials should have ended in dismissals, given that the accusation is impossible.

These are historical examples, but there's certainly vestigial laws of that ilk. And in several regions of the world, where witchcraft is still part of common everyday anxieties, such laws still apply (customary or judicial). Also laws live long, there's certainly many forgotten laws that have become impossible to break simply due to the vanishing of the technologies or practices they pertain to.

It would take a bit of digging, but these are the directions likely to offer examples.

dtgreene: [...]
* Reincarnating without permission is illegal in China
* Killing Bigfoot in British Columbia or Washington State (even though such a being's existence has never been proven)
[...]

Wirvington: Isn't that statement a tad too nebulous? According to this article (https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2022/09/linux-user-share-on-steam-continues-the-slow-climb-steamos-rises/) there's around 1.2-1.3% of Steam users who game on Linux. That's a lot of people if we take into account steam.db's concurrent user data for this year, which has climbed from a figure of 25 million to an average of 27-28 aprox. The extrapolation might not be valid, sure, but still, that's a lot of people and potential user base for gog. The question is whether gog are confident they can attract those users (or some of them) to their platform when there's Steam, Lutris, or Heroic which offer more features or are more versatile than a potential galaxy linux client. So I'd argue galaxy coming to Linux isn't a matter of user base, but of value proposition.

amok: and again - all you are doing is justifying gOg's decision. what you fail to see is that I so far have not argued for or against Linux, as it does not matte - justifications have no impact on the point i made. However, thats is all you have done so far, and at the very best that's only very tangental to my point, if we are being very generous. You going on about it just shows that you did not understand my point. what you are basically arguing here, is that we should not take responsebility for our actions, if the action is justified enough (which is immoral).

if gOg have made a decision, then whatever the the outcome is, it is what gOg decided. gOg has so far decided to not support Linux, so gOg is not supporting Linux, and this was gOg's decision. the reasons why does not matter towards this point, for all that i care it could be because gOg does not like pink elephants. when you make a decision (no matter for what reason) then you are the one that own that decision. so in this case, gOg is to blame for not supporting Linux, as gOg decided to not support Linux (because they do not like pink elephants).

is it the word "blame" that triggers you? should I use "accountable for", "liable for", "fault", "responsable for", or any other synonym? becuse this is not rocket science, it is not even worthy of discussion. again - I am not saying anything wheter gOg should or should not support Linux, that's all uppon you. all I am saying is that gOg weighted up the pros and cons, and they decided to not support Linux. that was gOg's choice.

so all I am saying that wheter gOg support lLinux or not is gOg's decision, they can have good reasons for this, they can have bad reasons for this. and i cannot for thel life of me see how you are arguing against it, becuse the only other logical opposition to gOg making a buisess decision - is that they did not take a buisness decision. to which you have already said they do..... so Q.E.D?

(if it si not clear - you have so far not argued against my point, but against a justification for supporting Linux. if you have a valid argument against my point, then thats fine and I would like to deal with it, but if you are just going to continue with the justification for gOg's decision, then this is just becoming repetetive and pointless. I don't think I can make my point much clearer than I have done now, so if you still do not understand it then.... I don't know)

Timboli: in any case GOG do provide many Linux versions of games at GOG, just not support, and support is what I am on about. The support won't happen until it is viable for GOG ... that means employ some Linux gaming expert etc to deal with any issues.

vv221: GOG provides official support for ~1 200 Linux games (not counting DLCs).

Timboli: I do see the point you are trying to make, but to me it is invalid. You have things upside down and back the front. The onus is not on GOG.

Timboli: What you are saying, is similar to saying that folk who don't read the Bible, for instance, are to be blamed then for not believing in God, which is incredibly ridiculous. Nothing says they have to read the Bible, and they cannot be blamed if they don't.

Timboli: Blame or fault are related to doing something wrong. Accountable is related to responsible, and 'liable for' is completely out of place. GOG are not doing wrong and they are not responsible for what Linux Gamers want, so they have nothing to be accountable for.

Timboli: It is pretty clear now that you and I are never going to agree on this, so it is pointless to continue, as we have already started repeating ourselves.

Timboli: Have you something to back that up

Timboli: last I read GOG stated they do not support Linux, and that Linux downloads are a bonus.

BreOl72: Well, by THAT "logic" (= leaving out the LEGALITY of things one might decide to do): one can do EVERYTHING.
Sorry, but that's a really stupid argument.
CAN I grab my hammer and bash someone's head in on the street?
Of course, i CAN...