Recently I heard of a regulation France introduced (or was proposing be introduced internationally at least) in order to force companies developing closed source applications to open source them once end of life is declared for the software. And again I shall state this is almost purely in an effort to be fair to the users of the software. Why is this "fair"? What does it reflect about the rest of the life of the software? i.e. What is the impact on the non-end of life- life of the software and the user?
If it is fair to force declaration of the source code because the users are no longer supported with updates and maintenance of the software. Then this means it is recognized that forcing users to use software that doesn't remain in appreciation of their security needs is seen here as ethically wrong. In essence we recognize here that users cannot be held captive by software they are not allowed to understand or change by the imposition of the company that owns the software. Most notably because if security flaws surface in them, it is literally a holding hostage of the user; in affect it becomes an actual malware.
My position here is to say that the reality is that:
any state in which the user cannot fairly change or adapt the software to their security, privacy and usage needs is what is being combated.
This means technically speaking whenever a user is forced to use the software and cannot change or see the source code applies too; which is all the time! The essential "end of life" state exists when the software is no longer kept up to date with user's needs (which is when the user cannot communicate or fairly actuate them in the software - order to do that they need to first understand the software design ironically).