The sovereignty in discussion here looks just like the technology independence necessary for the states to go to war. So, would this be something like, “let’s go to war, genocide, devastation, and all kind of abominations, but with free software that’s ethic and respect the users' freedoms”?

A relevant debate to have.

Some definitions:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community.
→ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

In this case is clear that there's no freedom through war development - war is by definition the negation of freedom to all the people involved, who suffer permanent atrocities, except just the very few beneficiaries who profit from it -, and community only can mean (specially talking about software and in an Internet era) the whole world, the all-humanity community. To respect freedom and community must mean to oppose war - which in turn must mean to oppose the social class and regime who impulse the war initiative.

Free software means the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.
→ https://www.gnu.org/

Liberty and free speech are two of the first things that get obliterated by war...

Free software (or libre software) is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price: all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.
→ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

"All users are legally free to do what they want with their copies" is typically the premise that conflicts with the "respect for users' freedom and community". In this case, "all users" includes the army high command, and, "to do what they want" implies its use with the purpose of end people's freedom and communities existence.

Clearly it's not the same to analyze this concepts in times of peace (where are those times?), but all this seems to call for a wider view and strategy.

Comments?

→ https://twitter.com/Siftedeu/status/1333319919178571783