If you're concerned about the US controlling open source - you can fork it. But a fork won't be successful if it doesn't have users and contributors.
Remember OpenOffice.org? What do you think people talk more about - that one or the fork LibreOffice?
Android has forks as well. The main problem with Android isn't the problems forking the OS itself. It's the Google Play layers, which is not open source and fully controlled by Google - which way too many apps depends on, making it much harder to break free from Google's Android implementation.
You are equally not forced to use or implement protocols you don't deem needed in your own code. Use the alternatives, HTTP is well established and can do most of what QUIC can do. And the HTTP standard can also be extended and improved.
Protocols not being based on open standards - they are a pain to support outside of its origin software stack. Reverse engineering is the only viable path if there are no other open alternatives available.
So open source and open standards can help you break free of evil empires; the capability of digital sovereignty is built into open source and open standards.
If you're concerned about the US controlling open source - you can fork it.This is a naive take: above a certain complexity, hard forks of a software is not licensing issue. So while you can legally fork #Chromium, nobody can really hope of doing so in any meaningful way.
#WHATWG standards are dictated by the most used browsers, that are all US controlled anyway. And that's why it's such a monoculture, with #Firefox there only to provide a little #antitrust warranty to #Google: the standard themselves are designed to work as entry barriers to the browser market.
So again, open standards do not provide #DigitalSovereignty by themselves.
Open source and open standards only work in this regards whene there are several independent implementation from each country, so that there is no way to lock-in users, companies and countries' administrarions.
Without existing, multiple alternative, independent and fully interoperable implementations, open standards just reinforce centralization as Google proved when even #Microsoft abandoned their browser engine.
Then sure, #FreeSoftware helps with Digital #Sovereignty, since (and as long) people's #freedom is its primary concern.
But it's important to not conflate individual freedom and autonomy with digital sovereignty!
If all of your country payments are handled by US corporations, you might well use #GNU/ #Hurd on your open hardware, but you are not free and your country has no sovereignty.
If all of your health data are stored by US corporations, they might well only use free software on open hardware located in your neighbourhood, but they are alware at a ssh of distance from #NSA, so you are not free and your country has no sovereignty.
What about your judges or your lawmakers exchanging unencrypted emails over #gmail or #outlook365?
Again, they can use opensource only, but you are not free, your country has no sovereignty and your vote is worth nothing.
So sure, after getting rid of US Tech we might even move to a #FOSS only stack EU-wide.
But first and foremost we need to break free from US control and surveillance.
Some opensource projects may help to ackieve this urgent goal.
Biggest ones won't and we shouldn't naively argue that going full opensource is per se useful or required to gain #DigitalSovereignty.
@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net