TheJoe: Legal? How? If there's legal problems adding support for another OS then there must be problems adding it for Windows. There's no difference at all.
Aliasalpha: I assumed that meant the whole decompiling the software thing so it can be re-coded to run in the wildlands where direct x is merely a legend
There's no legal issue; you don't need to decompile software. For a few reasons:
1. Any game that runs in DosBox on Windows is compatible with DosBox on Linux with no modification. (Unless GOG has been adding special features to the Windows DosBox that haven't transferred across to Linux or something)
2. A lot of older Windows games run using Wine, a Windows compatibility layer. Many software companies (Including Google) have been using it to release Linux "ports" of their software. I've never heard of Microsoft bugging anyone about it, and I don't think they'd have any legal standing if they did.
3. Decompiling software to port it to another operating system is close to unheard of. It'd likely take way more time and resources than GoG has. There *would* be legal issues with it.
===
Alas, Google is talking about using this on ARM-based netbooks. DosBox and Wine won't help much there, unless you get an x86 emulator running underneath them (which would be fairly slow on a netbook). Games which use interpreters such as SCUMM (think Monkey Island) should be able to run as long as the interpreter has a port (SCUMM runs on
anything), but a fairly substantial amount of the GOG catalog won't be compatible.
Actually, I'm not even sure you'll be able to use anything but web applications in Chrome OS, so we may be further limited to browser games.
Edit: Well, ok. Maybe their deals with software houses are only good for selling stuff on Windows or something like that. I suppose there's probably non-technical legal issues attached to the thing.