No you don't. Once the usable files are extracted, there is nothing to install. The only thing distributed is the port of innoup, not the game files or your theoretical "installer".

1. We're not talking about making a modified installer, we're just talking about extracting the usable files from the existing installer, that's it.

2. Distributing a port of already existing open source (GPLed) project is perfectly legal. All the tool does is extract the files, no more, no less.

3. Again, there is no modifying or porting going on here, just extracting.

I think what you are missing is that we are only talking about the games that GOG sells that utilize DOSBox and ScummVM for their compatibility. This proposed tool would extract the files from the installer that would then be used by Linux native versions of DOSBox and ScummVM to run the games. People are already doing this on Linux, but the process to do it is awkward. You need to run the installer in Wine, then assuming it works fine (it usually does), copy the installed game files from your Wine installation to the native DOSBox/ScummVM directories. This would remove Wine from the equation and just get you the files you need to run the games directly.

I see. It makes a lot more sense then.

Thank You for the link. I have just finished reading the GoG answer on the matter. And it seems to be exactly what I said. GoG is not working to make it happen.
The main argument for not doing so is too many various distributions which might break things. That is true, but linux support might be limited to one. Let's say ubuntu.
Ubuntu is a perfect pick because Canonical shows great concern about this exact matter of too frequent changes. New versions are being released in timely fashion every half a year. LTS (Long Term Support) version is planned for release every 5 years. Plain and simple.

Microsoft is supporting linux for some time. Read IT news! I don't know the situation out there in United States, but here on Old Continent Europe Union has imposed huge penalties for lack of interoperability between systems. I am happy about that.
Also Microsoft participates in linux development. I have just googled that link for You: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/who-helps-make-linux-microsoft/10704

Also GoG can hold on with direct linux support, but can help with the ideas posted here before. Like separate executables. Write cross platform game launcher/installer, etc. Things which are not too difficult, but can better prepare the company for the inevitable revolution ;)

And first of all Linux is freedom while Windows is an enslavement. :)

Freedom to shoot yourself in the foot? Yes. Freedom to interact with the rest of the world or to get work done? Not so much.

A cross-platform installer would be a nice thing, but frankly probably not too practical either. Maybe using Mono it would work. GOG doesn't have a lot of revenue or high margins. I think there is really very little they can spend on things not directly related to games, and frankly the Linux gaming market is tiny and already mostly covered by open source or indie games.

Read it again, that's not what it says at all. Yes, they are not actively working on Linux right now, they are not even close to ready for that yet. What they are doing is considering their options. They did not say they will not or will never support Linux, just that they aren't at that point yet. If you expected anything more than that, then you had unreasonable expectations to begin with.
I agree, Ubuntu might be perfect for stable support (highly debatable, their 6 month release cycle has broken many a software install)... if GOG wanted to piss off over half the Linux community by ignoring the other major distributions that no other Linux gaming site ignores. They would also be further limiting the already significantly limited market for Linux sales, which is just a bad business decision.
That's not Microsoft supporting Linux, that's Microsoft supporting Windows by making it easier for virtual Linux installs to run on host Windows systems and vice versa. All they are doing is broadening the market for them to sell more Windows licenses. It is simply self-interest on their part, not any kind of commitment to Linux development in the slightest.
If GOG does not have the spare resources to dedicate to Linux or Mac or anything else, what makes you think they can afford to offer any kind of "part-time" support for projects that they will get no revenue from for the foreseeable future? GOG is a business, not a charity (despite the amount of stuff they give away for free). When they are ready and able to take the plunge, they will. Starting things piecemeal doesn't really help matters at all, it just leaves us with yet another partially started, barely functional product that we will have to wait possibly years for any kind of semblance of usefulness and we already have way too many of those on Linux as it is.

Understand, I really want GOG to start supporting Linux and other OSes, but I want them to do it right, both for their sake and for Linux's sake. On the desktop, Linux software is still far too unprofessional and user unfriendly in its presentation (there are some exceptions, of course). It doesn't need yet another barely alpha state project that has "fantastic potential", but little in the way of current user friendliness or functionality. It needs polished, professional, easy to use, exciting projects to advance, and I think GOG could provide that, at least on the gaming font, if they take their time and do it right.
You know, hyperbolic statements like that do nothing to advance the cause of Linux, they just make Linux users seem like nutcases. I use Linux, Android and Windows and I am a slave to none of them. Each of them has their pros and cons and each serves its own purpose. For me right now, Linux is great for general purpose computing, Android for portability and Windows for gaming (there is of course some crossover on all fronts). If the capabilities of any of them were to change dramatically, I would switch in a heartbeat. Would you be able to say the same about Windows or are you too "enslaved" by your bias for Linux?

This is where I don't quite follow. GOG could simply operate the way they usually do, bar that one request where they pack games differently. Who said they would have to deal with the occasional "I tried to download the archive package and _____ happened, help!" when they could continue doing what they are doing now?

I'm just going to request Archives, maybe we'll get them.

http://www.gog.com/en/wishlist/site/extra_file_archives_for_dosbox_games

You should read the entire thread then (and any number of others on the subject), this has already been covered multiple times. GOG says they would have to deal with that. They won't half-ass support for anything they offer. If they decide to offer Linux games (or any other OS for that matter), it will be with full support for the games on that OS, not "here's a package of some kind, you're on your own to deal with it". They already have enough trouble keeping up with the support requests on Windows, adding another OS would tax that limited system too much, especially when they aren't already prepared to support Linux with the necessary hardware for testing and tech knowledge to answer questions.

Ahhh, yes. Totally forgot about that while reading and responding to your post. GOG's perfectionism. Guess they wouldn't even put in the bonus content section, hm? Oh, well.

I sure hope that with Valve finally working towards a real Steam client for Linux, that GOG eventually comes around to doing this. Curiously, the last Steam survey I got also detected the Wine version I was using and for some reason that got me really excited. Nothing happened yet though.

Personally, I'm hoping that GOG's Linux support would put things on a tar ball with a shell script install. Something like:

1.) Download Game #1 Pack
2.) Download Dosbox/Wine from GOG with the requisite: "This is not officially supported stuff!" Of course if there is a native Linux client, you don't need to provide this link at all.
3.) Then run magic script to fix it all up for you.

While Steam moving into Linux has been great news (client should be out by the end of the year!) and is very likely to influence GOG's future plans... hopefully in a good way... there is still the question of the games. Just having a storefront is useless if they don't have games to sell. Steam is actually in a worse position than GOG on this front. At least with GOG a large number of the games without a native Linux version could (in theory) be packaged with the Linux versions of DOSBox and ScummVM. With Steam, a much larger percentage of their games do not have that option, nor do they have a native Linux version. It seems to me that, at least at the beginning, the Steam Linux store will be seriously limited to mostly indie titles. That might be a good start and may be enough to influence some of the larger devs and publishers to come on board, which would also be a benefit to GOG's potential plans, but it also might not change anything (most of those indies have had Linux versions available from the beginning and it hasn't influenced a thing). Only time will tell.

Personally, I think the Indie Linux games have made changes but it's not the kind of change that happens overnight. I think the consistent Humble Bundle stats that show Linux customers pay more than the other platforms show there is something going on here. I think it influenced a bit Valve's position to convince them to make a Linux clien.

You are right there. A Linux version of Steam is not much without the games. The indie titles is definitely a start on that front. Valve is also looking to port their own games which is added value even though some (if not all) the games run under Wine. Steam is a well-respected and established digital distribution medium though and if Linux sales are good, then it's a step closer to a bit more recognition.

One brick at a time.

Would this also help Mac users?

If Epic finally would port the Unreal Engine to Linux we'd have a ton of new games. Mass Effect 1,2,3; Bulletstorm; UT3 (which is already almost ported anyway); Spec Ops: The Line; etc, etc

That would be the one catalyst which would probably fuel Linux Gaming.
Afterall, Unreal 3 Engine is based on OpenGL anyway. Where's the damned port?

Didn't ID promise a Rage port? What happened to that?

I wanted to ask something to the folks here but saw some unanswered queries. So, first, some answers to that. :)

UE3 was ported by Ryan Gordon (icculus) but never released officially by Epic because of the licensing quagmire that Epic is tied up with during the creation of UE 3. Dead port, period.

ID is no longer in the business of doing Linux ports ever since Timothy Bessett left ID Soft this year. Tim has been responsible for practically all the Linux port work in ID Soft and John Carmack had come out and said Linux ports created good will but nothing much else. Bottom line, useless. Rage was never promised for Linux. It was under: "We'll see."

Now for what I wanted to ask folks here. I'm under the impression that the way GOG supports old games here is that they muck around with Dos Box, Scumm VM and whatever it is and bundle an installer with the old game. I'm wondering if for the Linux push, you guys would be OK for them to basically get the game on Windows and muck around with Wine. Then bundle the two with each other so you end up with a specific version of Wine that runs the game and the Windows game. This is no different from the Cider Mac ports that EA has done with Transgaming and I know Mac Users weren't particularly happy about it.

Thoughts?