Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)

What would that mean for Linux distros? It seems like it could be a law that cuts off the competition. Like amazon who is very selectively for better working conditions when the know that no competitior can fulfull them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Would Linux even count since it’s foss?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I think it does in some cases, like if you buy a System 76 computer with PopOS, or you buy a server with Red Hat.
    However if you install a Linux OS yourself, that is available free of charge, there isn't any money to claim back, and it would be illogical if there should be demands on updates.

    I think logically there needs to be money involved, so if you download PopOS you're on your own, but if you bought a computer with PopOS installed it is part of a package.

    I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience this is how things typically work.

    Edit PS:
    If it's FOSS or FLOSS there also technically isn't any owner, so there is no legal person to make a claim against.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    I think it would need to be a commercial product like Red Hat or preinstalled OS by the company that sell the computer.
    With a FOSS distribution that is made freely available without charge, that people download and install themselves, people are probably themselves responsible for their choice of OS.

  • source
  • parent