Re: linux-distros membership application of openEuler

["W. Wadepohl" <w.wadepohl () posteo de>]

Heiko Schlittermann wrote in
>   |And adhere the spirit of Free and Open Source (as far as I understand it),
>   |that there is no instance that can judge about political, ethical,
>   |religious issues. Free means free. Open means open.
I acknowledge that linux-distros list is not free as in freedom. The 
members of linux-distros mostly do business in the U.S. and therfore 
they have to comply to the rules of the U.S. This rules does not honor 
the freedom of the open source community. They exclude parts of the free 
community.

That's sad and they do not support the concept of freedom on whose 
foundation the open source community is built.

BTW: As I exlained some times ago, the most instances of GNU/Linux are 
NOT distros, but embedded systems. The embargo of security information 
to these developers makes the internet more insecure. Maybe the European 
CRA will change something in the future.

I'm not happy to get information about security vulnerabilities/fixes 
with a time lag where my tenthousends of IoT devices are vulnerable.

--
Wolfram Wadepohl