In here contains all bits of information and resources that coule be handy when trying to push for the change you want in the world.

Why the Open Source needs to be a Movement.

As the digital world continues to grow in size and complexity. The Movement towards Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) expands in tandem with this growth. However, this movement is threatened by Big Tech attempting to consolidate complete hardware control on one side, and Governments implementing seemingly ham fisted, restrictive measures on the other.

Despite the technical achievements of the FOSS community, they have limited acknowledgement in the wider community. There are fleeting and vaguely understood mentions by the government, and the average person on the street wouldn’t even know what Linux is, despite knowing about proprietary operating systems like Windows and macOS.

Despite intense passion from people within the Open Source community, very few bring that passion to non-technical community groups or political organisations. When questions around technology appear in those circles, the only information they are given comes from Big Tech. They use their immense wealth to push solutions designed to generate the most profit for those companies. Their advertising and consistent lobbying is left unchallenged. A pro-FOSS voice, even a tiny one, can inform the public about the Open Source alternative, increasing dependence on and thus desire to protect FOSS.

FOSS needs to show itself in the community.

Some people believe governments should stay out of the Open Source Movement.
The reality is, Free and Open Source Software plays a big role in how the IT industry works. Not only does it allow average people to access digital tools without needing to pay fees, It also gives Startups significantly more opportunity to compete in a highly competitive industry.

The most notable Competitors of the big five Tech Titans use FOSS like Linux, the biggest being Canonical[1] and Valve[2], worth Millions and Billions respectively.

Additionally, of the 10 Major Linux Distributions (Plus OpenBSD) on Distrowatch, the Majority are Community run. Two notable ones: the stable Debian and the customisable Arch, are what Canonical’s Ubuntu and Valve’s SteamOS are respectively based on.

Ultimately, a world without FOSS won’t mean a world without those conglomerates, it would mean a world where competing against conglomerates is viable. These tools are maintained by communities, and enable those without the financial power to replicate those tools to not lag too far behind the cutting edge.

Open Source Software only exists if we put in place an environment that allows it to exist. If we want to keep the barrier of entry for new tech companies low by allowing usable FOSS, then we need to ensure that such software is protected, and that the hardware is able to run it.

Bringing control back to communities. Why being part of the world is so important.

The Free and Open Source Software community puts in a lot of work to enable people to use devices as they wish, but there are a lot of ways the world is structured that slows down progress immensely.

One example is phones. These are some of the most power efficient and petite computers ever mass-produced. Their ARM architecture is the second most supported behind x86, and endless examples of the chipset capacity for reuse have been displayed by devices like the Raspberry Pi.

However, enigmatic and proprietary firmware, coupled with difficult or impossible to unlock bootloaders make installing and supporting these devices — despite the best efforts of projects like PostmarketOS[3] — very difficult. When you combine these factors with the additional ‘feature’ of activation lock preventing resets, second hand handsets become destined to landfill, being too small and tedious to properly and profitably recycle.

Despite the technical complications that arise from these issues, relatively simple policy by government can provide remedy*. Requiring devices allow users to unlock their devices. Enabling them to be wiped after prolonged inactivity, and an overall policy agenda that seeks to separate control of hardware and software markets so that today’s technology can be used to its fullest extent.

* Big emphasis on “relatively”. Policy is a very complicated thing, and there will likely be many roadblocks and exceptions found along the way. Relative to the other convoluted issues government has been made to manage, firmware requirements would be simple.

Government isn’t a beast, but a battleground

When we look at examples of government action, every time action was taken at the expense of the wider community, communities resisted. Sometimes, those communities won.

Government is not an entity making decisions for us, it is where the people who advocate for their beliefs fight to be seen. If we truly want Free and Open Source Software to exist we need to be there in the trenches with other communities of people working to reach our fullest potential in the ways we see fit.

1. Canonical is a private computer software company that is the primary developer of Ubuntu, a popular distribution of Linux. According to w3techs it is the most popular identifiable Linux distribution that websites run on. ↩︎

2. Probably needing no footnote, Valve is one of the largest video game companies in the world. They started by developing video games, most notably the Half Life games, but have primarily garnered power through domination of the distribution market with Steam. Within the past few years, Valve has leaned into the gaming hardware market by releasing the Steam Deck, who’s Linux-based SteamOS may compete with Windows as a gaming PC operating system in the near future. ↩︎

3. PostmarketOS is a project to bring mainline (non-android) Linux to phones. They have already bought support for dozens of devices, but the vast majority still lack suitable support, and a majority of that majority have no support at all. ↩︎

4. For some potent examples of government enabled massacres, I suggest the book “The Jakarta Method” by Vincent Bevins. A depressing read to be sure, but nevertheless important to keep in mind. ↩︎

5. Although criticised more broadly by various groups including Queer Youth organisations and Social Media Multinationals. Submissions from places like the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child did include contributions from FOSS passionate individuals, in that specific case Professor of Internet Studies at Curtin University Tama Leaver ↩︎