this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
433 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
75233 readers
2964 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is stupid.
15 years is a massive time to just update your OS.
15 years ago instagram didn’t exist, the iPad was new, and people were just updating from Vista to Windows 7. I think Hadoop was just created then.
That is a massive amount of time to support software that would have almost no architectural protection against things like heartbleed.
This is more stupid, and I absolutely agree with the article it shouldn't be legal to end support of an OS this quickly, mind you this is not update to a new OS, like is common on phones, but mostly security updates for the OS you purchased with the device.
I absolutely think 10 years should be a minimum, but for PC, I can easily see an argument for 15 years, as many systems are purpose built, and should keep working even if an OS is discontinued.
A similar argument can be made for phones, but maybe that should just be 10 or maybe even just 5 years, which very few phones have. My vote is on 10 years, because what some companies have been doing for a long time, only supporting security updates for 3 years is not acceptable IMO. If the phone is free to install custom ROM unhindered, I would be more understanding, but phones are generally locked, potentially rendering them worthless if updates are not available.
I think I'd prefer if there was a minimum updates guarantee that OS sellers would have to disclose, but even then I'm more in favour of other companies being able to pick up the work by making sure devices have their bootloader unlockable after they don't get any more updates for X amount of time, rather than add burden to OS makers, because forcing people to support a project for Y amount of years would really harm indie developers releasing Linux distros and the like
It's not a burden for the OS maker, except when the OS is the product, and in that case it's only fair.
With Android the phone maker adapt the OS to their phones and flavor of Android, if they can't handle maintaining it, they can use vanilla. Google is the OS maker, and I think they can handle the burden.
The EU has been so far bad at making sure FOSS isn't seen as a paid product in the eyes of regulation, even in cases where it's clearly unpaid, see here. They can't be trusted to get this differentiation right.
Therefore, unlockable bootloader seems like the better idea. Get people to Linux and open Android variants if the closed-source companies won't serve them.
I have no idea what I'm supposed to see from you link? I don't see any particular legal knowledge, or description of any particular legal consequences, and I have no idea what the point is???
Obviously software provided for free "as is", cannot be required to be maintained. And if it is owned by the public which is the case with FOSS, there is no "owner" who can be made responsible.
If however the software is part of a commercial package, the one supplying the package has responsibility for the package supplied, you can't just supply open source software as part of a commercial product, and waive all responsibility for your product in that regard.
I admit it's a complex topic, but if you read the post in detail, it should answer your questions. The "owner" is typically the maintainer, if in doubt that's the person with repository write access. And the EU can apparently potentially require whatever to be maintained, not that I understand the exact details. The point was that the regulation doesn't seem to avoid FOSS fallout well.
Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it's very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can't be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.
If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it's not FOSS.
As far as I understand the license doesn't matter at all for EU regulation, other than "non-free" software is treated even worse.
The CRA from what I can tell applies to software given away for free, sadly. I'm not a lawyer, though. But you can perhaps see why people don't trust the EU.
If it's proprietary it doesn't, between proprietary and FOSS it absolutely does for the reasons I already stated.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ%3AL_202402847
TL;DR, just donations can already be a problem, apparently. But IANAL.