ifa: Ms. Groh, you are co-founder of and leader for strategy and organisational development at the Sovereign Tech Fund, an organisation supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action “to support the development, improvement and maintenance of open digital infrastructure”. What does that mean?

Adriana Groh: You can picture what we do as the reconstruction of roads, bridges and motorways.

ifa: What do you mean by that?

Groh: Similar to a physical infrastructure, for example motorways, we as a society are dependent on a digital infrastructure which is safe and which works. So we as a democratic society in the 21^st century should comprehend digital infrastructure as part of the provision of services of general interest, as a public service.

ifa: What exactly does the Sovereign Tech Fund do?

ifa: Originally, open source software was developed independently from the state as a reaction to the traditional approach to proprietary software development in which the source code is not made public and generally remains the property of a company. Why do we now need state funding for open source?

Groh: Because in the meantime we find ourselves in a classic common property dilemma. This is connected to how the Internet and specifically the open source ecosystem has developed and grown, namely in a decentralised and bottom-up manner, simply because people have voluntarily provided their program code and this code was so good that it was reused and installed millions of times, also in commercial software. You could actually say that, meanwhile, the entire world runs on open source software. All modern software is based on open source components, regardless of the software used in a car, an airplane, a coffee-maker, hospital or smartphone.

ifa: People are familiar with the Android operating system, which is based on open source. Apple’s iOS operating system also uses and builds on many open source components.

Groh: Exactly. But this open source ecosystem is becoming increasingly fragile, because the number of people, be they individuals or companies, using open source exceeds the number and resources of people who support and maintain open source software. Very often, this is not more than a handful of volunteer developers who do this in their spare time. And this can lead to security problems if no one feels responsible or everyone assumes that someone else will take care of support and maintenance. You may remember the “Log4J” security gap in the open source components in December 2021, which affected billions of applications and services throughout the entire world.

ifa: German public institutions were thus also vulnerable to hackers. Would it be better if, similar to roads, digital infrastructure were in the public domain?

The state should play a role as the third stakeholder and ensure that the digital infrastructure remains secure and transparent.

Groh: No, this is not about replacing the open source community, which works in a decentralized manner and bottom-up. It is also not about letting those companies off the hook which previously invested in open source software for the sake of their own interests. However, the state should play a role as the third stakeholder and ensure that the digital infrastructure remains secure and transparent. It should use public funds to specifically invest in critical infrastructure technologies in order to prevent the digital infrastructure from serving only the interests of individuals at some point.

ifa: Since being founded in October 2022, the Sovereign Tech Fund has funded about 40 open source projects for a total of 15.3 million euros. Could you give one or two examples?

Groh: When we carried out a preliminary study on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology in 2022 on implementing the Sovereign Tech Fund, there was not a single programme in which the state specifically invested in critical open basic technologies in the interest of the public. So Sovereign Tech Fund plays a pioneering role in Europe.

In the USA, there is the Open Technology Fund (OTF), which also invests public funds in open source projects. Was the OTF a kind of role model for the foundation of the Sovereign Tech Fund?

Groh: The Open Technology Fund is different. Its primary assignment is to promote freedom of the Internet, i.e. to strengthen and represent democratic values throughout the world. But what certainly influenced the foundation of the Sovereign Tech Fund was Donald Trump’s threat to close the Open Technology Fund temporarily. In the preliminary study, we presented this as an argument in favour of the Sovereign Tech Fund because it demonstrated why we in Europe should not be dependent on another government investing tax funds globally in software infrastructure.

Individuals, both companies and governments, should be in a position to use digital technologies and systems in a self-determining manner and to design them actively. The basis for this is an open digital infrastructure.

This brings us to a term that the Sovereign Tech Fund carries in its name: sovereignty. What does ‘sovereignty’ mean in the Sovereign Tech Fund?

Groh: First and foremost, we understand sovereignty to mean the ability to act. For us, this is not about protectionism or national sovereignty, not about something like “Open Source made in Germany”. That would be impossible, because open source is based on interdependence, openness and collaboration. These principles are the only way to achieve true sovereignty in practice. Anything else would be an illusion, and this applies not only for digital things. Individuals, both companies and governments, should be in a position to use digital technologies and systems in a self-determining manner and to design them actively. The basis for this is an open digital infrastructure. This is about having choices and thus increasing security and competitiveness.

In November 2023, you travelled to Barcelona for the German government’s lecture programme and to speak with representatives from the Spanish business, science and research sectors about open source and digital sovereignty. What topics and questions were discussed during those events?

Groh: Generally, it was about the work of the Sovereign Tech Fund, but also about diversity. The tech scene, including the software infrastructure sector, is still not diverse enough. The predominant type continues to be male, white, well educated, and between 30 and 50 years old. This is a challenge which must be met systemically and structurally, because different perspectives basically lead to better results. To return to the comparison with physical infrastructure: during the past years, those working in urban development came to understand that the design of public spaces is not considered enough from the perspective of women or other underrepresented groups. Where is it dark at night? Which corners can be reached with a pram or wheelchair, and which cannot? How we build our cities, how accessible they are for everyone and how well they function is a decisive factor in how liveable they make our environment.

Software concerns us all.

Groh: Originally, I studied Public Policy and Democratic Innovations in Maastricht, and it always frustrated me that generally people equated digitalisation with e-government. Unfortunately, that often meant that bad processes were transferred to bad digital processes instead of asking how processes could be optimised using new, digital possibilities. After finishing my studies, I then worked with others on developing a chat app for the German federal election in 2017. It enabled the members of parliament to communicate directly with their voters. That was my introduction to the software scene. Basically, I am interested in levers for transformation and this is where I see great potential in open digital technologies.

Interview by Juliane Pfordte
Translated by Vera Draack