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.
Comment on Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates
freeman@feddit.org 1 day ago
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.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
tabular@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Microsoft is so wealthy they could do that, and would even support such legislation if it could hinder their competitors such as smaller Linux distributions.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Would Linux even count since it’s foss?
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
If implemented this should only apply to paid OS’s or ones where a licence comes with the hardware
No license is needed for Linux
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day 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.