Open source/Free software projects are global by default (even by definition). Open to everyone. So please stop this nonsense about βeuropeanβ Open source that βweβ should invest in. Digital sovereignty with open source means global upstream, global cooperation and local implementation. But nationalist open source thinking simply isnβt the software freedom we are fighting for since many years.
1/2
Upstream development in FOSS is inclusive. Downstream use and implementation can be defined/limited by local laws, regulation, project governance and culture, depending on where and how it is used. Using FOSS in companies is different from use by authorities etc. But when you make upstream participation exclusive, you are not doing FOSS. Period. So. No matter how you organise your FOSS organisation, understand and respect this. Upstream = inclusive.
2/2
@jwildeboer Yes this! β¬οΈ
This is something very important. I really dislike it to hear in the context of #DigitalSovereignty mainly speaking about US vs EU, or other regions/countries.
#FOSS is the key to get digital sovereignty. A worldwide community of people and companies working together for public benefit and providing freedom and control to the users (whether an individual or a government, or an educational institution, or anything else).
@jwildeboer right and also wrong.
In it's core your text is true. But we speak here also about politics. And her Inational thinking is a core feature the moment you wish an invest.
So please do not bother politician's with that. This text is important for all others like developers, project manager, contributors. the peoples should always build there own mind and direct the politicians the way. It should not be the other way around.
@jwildeboer it is indeed true that the infrastructure allows us to react *lazily* to a compromised upstream i.e. *when* it happens instead of in anticipation of it.
the only preparation it takes really is maintaining international repository mirrors, which i think is already massively the case for everything that matters, since git/hg are innately built that way. svn would be more of a problem.
@jwildeboer This is not really true given how often some (usually US-based) project decides to move away from open source to some open-sounding-but-not-really model.
Theoretically it's a global commons, in practice there is still control resting with particular groups, and where those groups are based can matter.
A bit like people saying "just fork" etc β yes, OK, but that doesn't make the structures not matter, and the structures are generally not "global" in any real way.
@jwildeboer this is sadly not correct.
OSS projects under a legal umbrella and/or on a hosting platform are bound by the embargoes etc of the jurisdiction in which the umbrella and/or hosting platform reside.
Organizing PromCon, LF/CNCF gave us a whole list of countries we can not sell tickets to. This list felt longer than last time I organized it. A conference under a European umbrella would have a shorter list.
The same is directionally correct for the actual source code.
@zacchiro @jwildeboer in addition to this, it can also be an argument in favor of seeding and creating local knowledge. Creating and having clusters of high quality skills is a long term plus.
To stay in the Red Hat analogy, I am certain that the Brno region will benefit from knowledge, startups, better staff, etc which moved to the area or received better education there as a direct and indirect effect of Red Hat's office location choice for a very long time.
Very good point! Working on various open source projects like @misp, which received funding through different EU programs, highlights the importance of supporting global open source projects that are open to all fields of use and countries. Embracing existing open source projects is the best model to ensure sustainability and growth.
Jan Wildeboer π·
Job Bautista
Jan Vlug
Brar Piening
Andi Barth
ππππππ₯
endolexi
LR
Tom Walker
Richard "RichiH" Hartmann
Stefano Zacchiroli
Janet
Alexandre Dulaunoy