IMHO (In My Humble Opinion): It shouldn't be "Getting of US-Tech", it should be "Getting of proprietary tech".
Open Source and Free software, open standards, supported by local experts that are part of the global community — that's the way to #DigitalSovereignty. Many have already chosen that path, so the current push is more of an accelerator, a catalyst, not a radical change. The difference between Revolution and Evolution is just one single letter :)
(almost all replies go off on whataboutisms and pet peeves that are unrelated, so I will not waste my time on discussing them, my point is simple and clear, in my opinion, so it can stand on its own)
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.
And all of this starts with the data itself. It is the data you want to access which has the real value. Data you should own from the beginning.
If the data is in an open standard format, there is a possibility to break free.
If you cannot control the data, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If you cannot have access to software being able to make use of the data in a meaningful way for you, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If the software cannot be written, because the data format is unknown or too closely tied to the service provider generating the data, there are no baseline to achieve digital sovereignty.
With open standards, there can be built open source software using those open standards. Thus, you can decode and extract meaningful information from the data.
There are also no requirements anywhere that there must be more implementations for open source project from more countries. They key point is that source code must be open and available for all. That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible. Without a source code available, the path to extracting meaningful information ends up incredibly hard.
Open sourced software is one piece of the digital sovereignty puzzle, data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.
Having access to the data files containing your information is yet another piece in the same puzzle. You cannot achieve digital sovereignty without all of these three pieces;then someone will still have control of your information.
Likewise, if you use a service with a proprietary API - you are bound to that service as long as that service uses the same API. If more service providers provide the same standardised API, you can more easily switch between services. Again, open standards is a key component for digital sovereignty - otherwise you will not be able to process your data as you want.
And all of this starts with the data itself.Code is data. Data is code.
They key point is that source code must be open and available for all. That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible.I'd love if it was that simple!
data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.Again, it's not so simple: for example both #OpenDocument and #OOXML ( #OfficeOpenXML) are open standards, but in fact when you save in ooxml (docx, xlsx..) by #Microsoft tools, they include undocumented proprietary extensions that #LibreOffice cannot handle properly.
@jwildeboer yes, it is the difference between dependence on foreign tech and dependence on international cooperation. The latter avoids wars.
