From: "Geo." 

I believe the responsibility period for software should be equal to the
time it's covered by copyright. If it's illegal for anyone to reverse
engineer security and encryption then the copyright holder should be held
responsible for making sure security patches are provided. Fair is fair,
copyright holders can't make it illegal for others to patch it and then
claim they aren't responsible for patching it either.

Geo.

"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote in
message news:3e897845$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Hehe, I would like that too. But you know as well as I do that it isn't
> really possible, at least not now. Maybe if this sort of law was passed,
the
> software companies would have to take it into consideration when they
design
> new products, that they may have to support (provide patches, whatever)
them
> X years from now. Maybe it would be doable if it was a design factor...?
>
>
> Antti Kurenniemi
> (or maybe just lower the time one is responsible for ones kids to say, 6
> years? "Son, get yer fingers outta that jam jar or out the door
you go!"
> )
>
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e88cbbc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > I don't think providing security patches should be considered
> > "support". I think it should be considered a legal responsibility
> > like when you have kids you have a responsibility for 18 years..
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> > "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> > news:3e882a6f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > There's also the fact that a company who is in the business
> > > of making money really can't support and old product endlessly.
> > > We too are using a few NT4 servers, and would like to extend
> > > their lives indefinetly (they're rock solid), but I do understand
> > > that it had to end some day. Didn't they already extend the
> > > deadline a couple of times?
> > >
> > >
> > > Antti Kurenniemi
> > > (Liked NT4, Like W2k)
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4