diff options
author | Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz@elenq.tech> | 2024-09-19 21:01:46 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz@elenq.tech> | 2024-09-19 21:01:46 +0200 |
commit | 077fa139b214cfc548ac7313e9f6a1273633f183 (patch) | |
tree | 267e7c921265fe83692f64c78ca964a7606d75df | |
parent | 013fd67273367ca4211df4d4afe8e7735e9e2306 (diff) |
Add ngi open letter
-rw-r--r-- | content/ngi-open-letter.md | 155 |
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/ngi-open-letter.md b/content/ngi-open-letter.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d6b863 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/ngi-open-letter.md @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +Title: The European Union must keep funding free software +Date: 2024-07-20 +Category: +Tags: +Lang: en +Summary: I sign the petition urging European Union to continue funding free + software. + +No need to say that during the last 2 years part of my efforts trying to give +people a better world, using my engineering skills, have been funded by the +European Union with the NGI programme, which I was granted by NLNet. Every talk +I give about [what we achieved](https://ekaitz.elenq.tech/bootstrapGcc15.html) +I thank them because without this money I would never be able to use my time in +a long-term project like this. + +In [a recent +interview](https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-interviews/ekaitz-zarraga-risc-v-bootstrapping-effort/) +I mentioned many funding programmes out there focus the attention in the +private sector. I am very aware of this because I actually worked as a research +and development engineer for the private sector. Our R&D department was totally +funded by public programmes, to the point we even had profits, but everything +we did was just for the company we were part of. Nothing was released as free +software. + +Maybe you didn't know this, but I left that company because I believed (and I +continue to believe) the projects we started to do were not ethical. Our +company, trying to become profitable (task they failed at, years later I left), +started to make projects that used public funding to track users wherever they +went, and harass them with aggressive advertisement. As R&D engineers, our job +was to start to prototype this, which I didn't want to do. + +There were many reasons behind my decision, of course, but this was one of +them. I couldn't do that. **That was bad**. And it was done with **your +money**. + +I don't know if that model of throwing money to private companies hoping they +become stronger in the current globalised market makes any sense, that's not +for me to know. I'm *just* an engineer. I just hoped that if our money was +given to someone it was to be used for our benefit or at least not to be used +against us. + +My personal experience, which I admit is anecdotal but it is shared by many +colleagues, is the programmes that focus on the private sector don't make sure +this happens. They don't even require the projects developed with the money to +be shared with the public, letting the society benefit from the resulting +technical innovation they pledge to be promoting. + +I would prefer if the money was spent on things that would be shared, with open +licenses, with everyone. But I'm *just* an engineer, and I don't know about +*economic impact*, and the measurements the people who decide things use for +taking their decisions. + +What I do know is the people that really work for others, that make things +because their heart tells them to, are those that would never do something like +what the company I worked for did. They wouldn't think sharing their work as +free software is a project requirement, imposed by the programme they are +funded from. They would do it because they believe it is correct to do it. They +would do it because it is an atrocity not to do so. + +Surprisingly, a programme that shared those values existed: NGI; and I had the +honor to be supported by it for the last two years. This has let me focus in +making that my heart believes is correct and my brain has the skill to do. I'm +giving back what I was given by the public university where I studied, by all +the free software I use everyday and by all the open knowledge I have the +privilege to be able to acquire from The (open) Internet. + +The NGI programme is important. It changes the world in the proper direction. + +It seems the European Union is more interested in putting money in other things +(like AI) instead, maybe not being aware that the world's software +infrastructure has to be maintained, and companies are not going to do it for +us. + +Because all that I said, I sign the open letter by Petites Singularités you can +read below. + +> Initially published by [petites +> singularités](https://ps.zoethical.org/pub/lettre-publique-aux-ncp-au-sujet-de-ngi/). +> English translation provided by +> [OW2](https://www.ow2.org/view/Events/The_European_Union_must_keep_funding_free_software_open_letter). + +### Open Letter to the European Commission + +Since 2020, Next Generation Internet ([NGI](https://www.ngi.eu)) programmes, +part of European Commission's Horizon programme, fund free software in Europe +using a cascade funding mechanism (see for example NLnet's +[calls](https://www.nlnet.nl/commonsfund)). This year, according to the Horizon +Europe working draft detailing funding programmes for 2025, we notice that Next +Generation Internet is not mentioned any more as part of Cluster 4. + +NGI programmes have shown their strength and importance to supporting the +European software infrastructure, as a generic funding instrument to fund +digital commons and ensure their long-term sustainability. We find this +transformation incomprehensible, moreover when NGI has proven efficient and +economical to support free software as a whole, from the smallest to the most +established initiatives. This ecosystem diversity backs the strength of +European technological innovation, and maintaining the NGI initiative to +provide structural support to software projects at the heart of worldwide +innovation is key to enforce the sovereignty of a European infrastructure. +Contrary to common perception, technical innovations often originate from +European rather than North American programming communities, and are mostly +initiated by small-scaled organizations. + +Previous Cluster 4 allocated 27 million euros to: + +- "Human centric Internet aligned with values and principles commonly shared in + Europe" ; +- "A flourishing internet, based on common building blocks created within NGI, + that enables better control of our digital life" ; +- "A structured ecosystem of talented contributors driving the creation of new + internet commons and the evolution of existing internet commons". + +In the name of these challenges, more than 500 projects received NGI funding in +the first 5 years, backed by 18 organisations managing these European funding +consortia. + +NGI contributes to a vast ecosystem, as most of its budget is allocated to fund +third parties by the means of open calls, to structure commons that cover the +whole Internet scope - from hardware to application, operating systems, digital +identities or data traffic supervision. This third-party funding is not renewed +in the current program, leaving many projects short on resources for research +and innovation in Europe. + +Moreover, NGI allows exchanges and collaborations across all the Euro zone +countries as well as "widening countries" [^1], currently both a success and an +ongoing progress, likewise the Erasmus programme before us. NGI also +contributes to opening and supporting longer relationships than strict project +funding does. It encourages implementing projects funded as pilots, backing +collaboration, identification and reuse of common elements across projects, +interoperability in identification systems and beyond, and setting up +development models that mix diverse scales and types of European funding +schemes. + +While the USA, China or Russia deploy huge public and private resources to +develop software and infrastructure that massively capture private consumer +data, the EU can't afford this renunciation. Free and open source software, as +supported by NGI since 2020, is by design the opposite of potential vectors for +foreign interference. It lets us keep our data local and favors a +community-wide economy and know-how, while allowing an international +collaboration. + +This is all the more essential in the current geopolitical context: the +challenge of technological sovereignty is central, and free software allows to +address it while acting for peace and sovereignty in the digital world as a +whole. + +[^1]: As defined by Horizon Europe, widening Member States are Bulgaria, + Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, + Lituania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Widening + associated countries (under condition of an association agreement) include + Albania, Armenia, Bosnia, Feroe Islands, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldavia, + Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine. + Widening overseas regions are : Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Martinique, + Reunion Island, Mayotte, Saint-Martin, The Azores, Madeira, the Canary + Islands. |