Why Europe’s Open-Source Push Will Succeed This Time

The EU public sector has been actively trying to break away from US Tech, as part its movement towards digital sovereignty.

Global geopolitical turbulence has accelerated the movement over the last year.

The risk of non-sovereign dependence on technology was brought to the forefront last month as the US digitally sanctioned six judges and three prosecutors, rendering them unable to use services that we take for granted in our personal lives.

Heise.de reports:

All his accounts with US companies such as Amazon, Airbnb, or PayPal were immediately closed by the providers. Online bookings, such as through Expedia, are immediately canceled, even if they concern hotels in France. Participation in e-commerce is also practically no longer possible for him, as US companies always play a role in one way or another, and they are strictly forbidden to enter into any trade relationship with sanctioned individuals.

He also describes the impact on participating in banking as drastic. Payment systems are blocked for him, as US companies like American Express, Visa, and Mastercard have a virtual monopoly in Europe. He also describes the rest of banking as severely restricted. For example, accounts with non-US banks have also been partially closed. Transactions in US dollars or via dollar conversions are forbidden to him.

This is what non-sovereign dependency looks like in practice.

Digital Sovereignty runs deep - an entirely sovereign stack requires everything from chip fabs to spreadsheets.

I’m going to focus on what I know best - software.

Why Open-Source Wins

The vast majority of software is built by businesses - professionals working full-time on product development. A business will understandably want to own the IP that it has invested so much in.

Every company needs to generate revenue to remain sustainable. The more money they make, the more they can improve or expand their products.

No matter how EU-friendly the company might be, it can still be acquired by a foreign corporation. If that happens, everyone who is dependent on that software is at the mercy of the new owners.

Unless… the software was built with an open and permissive license that allows its users to modify and maintain the product themselves.

Of course, nobody wants to start maintaining a product that they didn’t build. But an open-source license provides the insurance that protects organizations from future changes in IP ownership, or (understandbly) the company trying to squeeze out more profits to fuel innovation.

An open-source license keeps the creators honest - providing long-term viability for the user.

Previous OSS Failures

Over the years, there have been several pushes toward open source in the EU public sector, with some notable failures.

However, I believe that this time is different.

First - Let’s review a few previous attempts.

• LiMux was declared a success in Munich in 2013, only to be see a U-turn to Windows in 2017.
• Freiburg cancelled their move to OpenOffice in favour of Microsoft Office (2012).
• Dusseldorf chose Microsoft Office in 2006, despite attempts to migrate to OpenOffice.
• Vienna migrated to Wienux and back to Windows (2009)
• Swiss canton of Solothurn migrated to Linux, then back to Windows (2010)

All of the above cases boil down to one or both of the following:

• Compatibility. Few products supported Linux. Few products were integrated with OpenOffice / LibreOffice.
• “Performance” & capabilities. Open-source products prior to ~2015 tended to be less capable and polished than their commercial counterparts - they simply didn’t have the people power to keep up.

Most of these projects were treated as a cost-saving exercise rather than a strategic capability. With this mindset, it’s easy to see how a project might see delays or have to trade off on quality at some point.

If our real goal is technological independence we should not expect to achieve drastic cost savings.

Often, you get what you pay for.

This Time it’s Different

The above examples are focussed on Linux and Open/Libre Office.

The main reasons for project failure do resonate with me, a long-time Linux desktop user.

• Compatibility
• Capabilities (pre-2010)

Linux Desktop

I have used Linux for 4 years in a business context (previously Windows), and 10 years personally.

For capabilities - hand on heart, Ubuntu is a much, much better than Windows in 2025. It’s not even close.

I’m a former .NET developer with a soft-spot for Microsoft.

But Windows has become a Frankenstein.

Windows wouldn’t make my top 10 of Linux desktop distros… if it weren’t for compatibility. Everything supports Windows.

Occasionally I get annoyed when an app doesn’t support Linux. However, almost everything is in the browser now, so compatibility hasn’t been a blocker in years.

For me, compatibility is largely solved. My day-to-day work in Ubuntu is stable, fast, and just works.

Libre/Open Office

Neither has fully caught up with Microsoft Office, which remains the gold standard. Personally, I use (and prefer) Google Workspace.

Nextcloud, with integrated Collabra, is exploding with EU governments - covering office software, file storage, and more.

Nextcloud has solved the compatibility issues by providing web API access to files and documents.

And, crucially, because Nextcloud is a profitable company, it will catch up ground on capabilities, because that’s where its incentives lie.

The Commercialization of Open-Source

Free software has obvious commercial challenges.

“Commercial open-source” (COSS) is a term used to describe a company whose business model relies on open-source software. The company is usually the developer and custodian of the open-source software.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen an explosion in the number of COSS companies, as more organizations recognize the benefits of owning the critical software they use to run their businesses.

Many people see COSS as antithetical to open-source itself. Open-source software should be free from corporate control.

But, quality software is never “free”. And, despite my full support for digital sovereignty, I couldn’t help but feel affronted when I read about Schleswig-Holstein’s migration to LibreOffice and how it saved them many millions, because they are now using free software.

In the public coverage I read, I didn’t see any mention of investment in the creators of Libre Office.

There is no foul here, but we need to be careful. Value creation in OSS will stop if no value can be captured by the creators.

COSS is far from perfect, but we need profitable companies hiring top talent to build cutting-edge, open-source products.

Commercial open-source companies will be a major contributor to European digital sovereignty.

Most Importantly, Political Pressure

The drive and incentive is now here to push these projects through from the top, and it’s clear that the goal is digital sovereignty, not cheap software

The first summit on EU Digital Soverighty summit took place in November.

Élysée.fr (the website for the French presidency) writes:

France and Germany targeted seven strategic and promising areas to unlock EU’s competitiveness and build EU’s digital sovereignty

The areas include

• “Data Sovereignty”
• “Digital Public Infrastructure and Open Source tools for public administration”
• A joint task force on “European digital sovereignty”, with over 12 billion euro pledged to invest in key technologies.

French President Emanuel Macron gave a keynote, an inspiring watch :

Europe doesn’t want to be the client of the big entrepreneurs or the big solutions. We want to design our own solutions.

This is a push that is coming right from the top. The timing is perfect, the political will is there, and the technology is ready.

We, at Budibase, are committed to supporting this movement - bringing sovereign AI Workflows to the EU public sector.

We’d love to hear your thoughts! Please reach out to me if you believe we could be a good partner on this journey.