Remix.run Logo
positron26 10 hours ago

As a US citizen, when I see the phrase "European digital sovereignty," I'm a bit concerned that our OSS enthusiast and activist allies in that geography are learning to associate American OSS with American tech companies and US government. This could deepen the old free/libre vs open source divide that seems to have polarized along the separation by the Atlantic ocean. If so, in a time where Americans may be soon head-to-head with a runaway tyrannical government, our EU allies will be busy retreating into free/libre commensalist thinking that seem tunnel-visioned on using government funding to escape MS Word, something that is going to be the last thing on their minds if actual sovereignty concerns emerge.

The more general goal will remain to protect all individual freedoms from all tyrannical governments, not to depend on them. It will remain to use better information technology to enhance the functioning of all governments and to create healthy competition in all markets to protect consumer choice. American OSS has not forgotten this one bit. Our country is just having a moment, and it won't help if EU OSS participation writes us off as casualties while EU OSS focuses on "uniquely European" solutions.

yunnpp 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think anyone is confused about American OSS and American corporations run amok with wealth accumulation and regulatory capture. It's a European conference held at a time when governments are waking up to the realization that foreign-owned proprietary software is a bad idea, and the idea of "digital sovereignty" has been around for a bit and did not originate at FOSDEM. The governments also seem to understand that OSS helps with transparency and minimizing costs by investing into a commons (though the message bears repeating; FSFE, EDRI and such do a good job getting it out), so hopefully they'll stick with that and not replicate the US model.

positron26 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't think anyone is confused about American OSS and American corporations run amok...

You literally just lumped it all together, exactly the fallacy I'm voicing my concern about.

> foreign-owned proprietary

OSS is global. "Foreign owned" is relative. If Americans reject "European" open source, it would make zero sense.

> the US model

What even is "the US model?" The things that are being described as "American" or "European" here are not inherently national.

yunnpp 8 hours ago | parent [-]

How did I lump both together when I specifically called them out separately, lol.

Everybody understands OSS/free software is global (though copyright/left is still subject to export controls and other laws.) No question about that. And I was specifically talking about proprietary software there, you even copied that in your reply...Proprietary software is bad; foreign-owned is even worse, like the EU has learned recently when Microsoft cuts your email short, for example.

The "US model" is obviously big monopolies or duopolies run unchecked, allowed to buy, prevent and starve competition, then seeking regulatory capture to secure a moat. That is what people know, for better or for worse. No laymen knows the FSF, or what that guy in Arkansas in the xkcd is doing for the digital infrastructure.

I think the main challenge for Europe will be to manage those public investments in an effective way for people's benefit. As far as I know, there are few precedents, and maybe nothing of that scale. China pulls off of open/free software significantly, mostly to avoid US proprietary software, but to my knowledge they don't give much/anything back. So it seems challenging, but I'm also excited for how/if they pull it off.

By the way, I donate to both US and EU free software and digital rights organizations. It was not my intention to nurture your conception of a divide, if that is what you took from my comment.

> The more general goal will remain to protect all individual freedoms from all tyrannical governments, not to depend on them.

This is more of an American pov and will probably be a disconnect for Europeans. Their governments don't screw them as much, so they probably don't see them as tyrannical. Those governments investing in proprietary software to move away from other proprietary software would be a mistake; so government investment into free/open source should be seen as a win, not something to shy away from in the name of individual freedom.

positron26 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> How did I lump both together when I specifically called them out separately, lol.

Dude, "American OSS and American corporations" is simple conjunction, a union, treating two things as one so that you can make a single predicate statement about them. If you mean to make separate statements about the two things, maybe don't group them into the same sentence phrase?

I asked you not to group these things together. If this provokes you to begin regurgitating "free/libre" ideology all over again, you obviously think that being asked to separate American OSS and American corporations is somehow incompatible with OSS or "free/libre". American OSS marched in front of Microsoft to demand refunds. Get it right.

yunnpp 7 hours ago | parent [-]

At this point you're clearly misconstruing my statements, and/or have some problems with reading comprehension. Your others comments don't leave much to be positive about, either.

lava_pidgeon 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1.) it's quiet clear the European sovereignity is a pitch to get resources into the OS eco system. 2.) it's very easy: after governments companies ans users will follow as os proofed to work. 3.) this is not us vs eu,.it is just us vs. The rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are threatened by Trumpy as well and located on another side of the Atlantic and probably their government are interested into OS as well. 4.) As there is not an os business model of US will work , money and users will be else where starting in Europe. It will be easier for Open Source somewhere else. 5.) so this is my last bit: your comment sounds like American don't want to protest against Trump because it is too dangerous. Well, that's the result as 50% of people voted for Trump. In your scene: Less resources for open source in the us

positron26 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> your comment sounds like American don't want to protest against Trump because it is too dangerous

At this time, we are still openly committed to the 2nd amendment in defense of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and so on. I am encouraging others to participate in open-carry demonstrations to make it clear to the authoritarians that they will not get the intimidating optics of an unopposed crackdown against a helpless crowd that they want. Personally, I grew up shooting things, so handling bootlickers will be natural if it comes to it.

Technically enabled solutions to better communicate, organize, and represent the will of the people would help a lot. Bomb-shelter thinking will not help much. If the US devolves into a Russian style authoritarian state, one where I will no longer be welcomed off the plane, the EU will have more to worry about than Windows. My ideas on the technically enabled side are complex but sound, so I encourage any interested in doing full stack Rust to get a hold of me by clicking links. I'll be finishing up some shader programming and feedback rendering today as the next piece of my strategy.

throwaw12 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> At this time, we are still openly committed to the 2nd amendment in defense of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th and so on.

Has it ever worked? ICE is killing Americans, and you can't point your gun to them, its not lawful.

If Trump tells ICE to seize all weapons in the US, or otherwise shoot people, you can't point your gun to them, its not lawful.

goodpoint 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

mr putin, is that you?