15 ms·

European Commission issues call for evidence on open source

447 points by pabs3 9mo ago

xbmcuser 9mo ago
To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it actually comes down to it are all for communism ie open source
- plastic-enjoyer 9mo ago
  Open source = communism is the dumbest take I've read on HN lmao
- madspindel 9mo ago
  I would argue open source is decentralization and proprietary is centralization. In other words, open source is libertarianism and proprietary is communism. And this move is to move from Big Tech/"Big State" to smaller alternatives.
  - watwut 9mo ago
    > proprietary is communism. Maybe we should not twist ourselves to logical pretzels to redefine terms like that.
- ngruhn 9mo ago
  Just because it's free? Let's talk again when all open source projects are funded and controlled by the state with zero competition between them and no consumer choice. Only one Linux distro, only one database, only one web framework, etc. And it's decided top-down from the state what to work on. I doubt though that these projects would have started in the first place in a communist setting.
  - ben_w 9mo ago
    "The" state, with no competition, like there's only one state? Belgium isn't big enough to realistically have its own linux, but France and Germany are.
    - pepa65 9mo ago
      Of course it's big enough. Why would it not be big enough??
      - ben_w 9mo ago
        All the usual reasons for comparative advantage, plus have you seen the size of OS codebases these days?
    - integralid 9mo ago
      North Korea has its own Linux. Google has its own Linux. There are Linux distributions maintained by a single person. Belgium will do fine.
      - ben_w 9mo ago
        Maintained, with heavy leaning on other people having actually written all the stuff, enabled by an open market. The hypothetical specifically precludes that.
  - lompad 9mo ago
    There is no reason such a state would have to set things up this way. As an example: you probably know that germany has socialized healthcare. It is, however, not implemented as a single-payer model. Instead there are tons of different insurances competing with each other, while having a highly regulated floor of what they MUST offer. Is the model perfect? Hell no, it has tons of issues - though overall it's pretty solid. My point is just that social policies and "no internal competition ever" does absolutely not have to go hand in hand. There is a massive middle ground. See: social democracy as a concept and in its current implementation.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - keybored 9mo ago
      And social democracy forked from the socialist tradition over half a century ago (GGP[1] said socialism/communism). So both you and GP are wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378
      - lompad 9mo ago
        Problem here being that those terms aren't used as defined in regular discourse. Language changes and casual use differs from academic use. When on an american-centric board anybody writes about "communism", I assume they refer to anything from marxism to stalinism to socialism to democratic socialism to social democracy up to anything non-hyper-capitalist. Not great, but sadly something to be taken into consideration. Especially when looked at in context - parent was criticizing the EU initiative by essentially claiming something like that leads to a kind of monoculture like in a planned economy reminiscent of "communism", here probably meaning stalinism, from what I assume is a radical libertarian position. Which tells me the person is likely american, implying a rather ... minimal awareness of the nuance here. Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
        9mo ago
  - xbmcuser 9mo ago
    Yours and others knee jerk reaction proves my point you are conflating autocracy with communism/socialism.
  - keybored 9mo ago
    This is as usual confused. People keep discussing communism as if they were (via analogy) talking about capitalism being about men in suites with fake smiles, green paper, bank vaults, and powerpoint presentations. Every time people have to respond with paragraphs upon paragraphs just unrolling all that nonsense. Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Hamuko 9mo ago
  Open source is not communism. Communism would entail that we collectively own Linux, which we don't. It's private property, and if we want to use the code, we need to abide by its licensing terms. Licensing terms that are built upon the existence of copyright, a concept that allows for private ownership of intellectual property.
  - Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
    The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright. If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all.
    - andsoitis 9mo ago
      > If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all. Why do you think so?
      - Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
        Because > 'The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright.' Upstreaming a patch implies you no longer need to maintain it. Law doesn't quite work the same as software, but in this case the metaphor holds.
- salvozappa 9mo ago
  This is so reductive. Open source has nothing to do with communism.
  - saubeidl 9mo ago
    As a socialist, I would disagree. Communism is about a would-be utopia after the workers own the means of production. For us tech workers, it could be argued that the means of production are source code. Thus, there is a socialist aspect to open source - but that's a good thing!
    - eudamoniac 9mo ago
      The means of production are computers, no?
Phelinofist 9mo ago
One more step in the right direction, good
raverbashing 9mo ago
The first comment on the link is much more helpful than the article https://lwn.net/Articles/1053131/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1053131/ (yes it seems that comments are subarticles)
ranguna 9mo ago
I'm going to send them my wishlist to see what happens. I'm not optimistic about this, but I'm not pessimistic either and am very curious to see what happens.
- Ylpertnodi 9mo ago
  Can we see your wishlist?
  - ranguna 9mo ago
    I don't have one yet, unfortunately. But it's definitely going to include immich (not EU software I think), nextcloud, some form of email server, a secure chat app (which I don't think the EU has), mastodon, an android spinoff like GrapheneOS, Linux (ofc), open source EU LLMs, and I don't know much else, I'll have to think about it more.
tomaytotomato 9mo ago
Maybe the EU can develop its own version of Linux OS, just like North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS -- edit When legislators start getting involved they will want to inevitably have their "own" version of something and their own SLAs and contracts. The reason they went with Microsoft/IBM/Oracle and others back in the day for software solutions is; they know on a piece of paper what they are getting, and who they can blame if they don't get it. With Opensource OS and software, even with auditing and stuff, there is no way to blame anyone apart from end-users. For politicians and bureacracts, that is a scary thing, as they will be the ones to blame (read: asses on the line) The consultation is great and all but As someone who has watched on the sidelines how Opensource governance turns projects into hydra monsters (Redhat, Jakarta EE). I wouldn't be surprised in a few years we will have a EU approved OS that is controlled by bureaucracts. But who knows, maybe they will just become end users of a popular distro and other opensource software.
- juliangmp 9mo ago
  What for? Plenty of maintainers for various distros are from Europe and/or the EU. For example: https://map.debian.net/ https://map.debian.net/
  - Mashimo 9mo ago
    What is this map? Almost every city in DK and Sweden shows "Kåre Olsen"
- supermatt 9mo ago
  Finland (where Linux comes from) is in the EU. There are also a few European linux distributions you may have heard of: e.g. Debian, SUSE, Ubuntu (UK), Mandrake/Mandriva/Mageia, Knoppix, etc.
  - RobotToaster 9mo ago
    > Ubuntu (UK) This is an EU initiative, Ubuntu probably isn't included.
pferde 9mo ago
One of the most useful steps would be to support codeforges like Github on European soil, and development of the ForgeFed project, so that those forges can talk to each other.
- susanthenerd 9mo ago
  Codeberg and Forjeo have a foundation in Germany
  - enriquto 9mo ago
    And sourcehut in the Netherlands!
  - juliangmp 9mo ago
    There was a grant in 2023 which was supported by the European Comission. So I think the topic itself isn't entirely unknown. https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/ https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/
    - menaerus 9mo ago
      From https://nlnet.nl/fediversity https://nlnet.nl/fediversity > We are seeking project proposals between 5.000 and 50.000 euro's — which should get you on your way. Am I the only one to think this is completely ridiculous amount of money? So, you want me to leave my very well paid job to innovate for the sake of EU competitiveness but you don't to invest more than 50k EUR (max grant). And as an individual you don't even stand a chance so this 50k EUR has to be distributed across several people. Did I get this right? Ah, and I almost forgot about the double standards ... the same EU commission is on a spending spree when it comes to the development of a fkn EU website which you use to apply for these funds. Each Brussels-based developer doing that very innovative work is paid ~100k EUR. What a blasphemy.
      - notahacker 9mo ago
        No, they don't want to you leave your very well paid job for this grant, they want to chuck a few bounties at some FOSS projects and pay for some people to attend hackathons or conferences if they can fill in a form giving sufficiently compelling reasons. How dare they!
Xelbair 9mo ago
We'll see how it goes this time. If they once again go for creating their own forks, instead of financing development of existing software then I'll know the initiative failed. Also imho their 'questions' mentioned in the comment kinda feel like they have answer baked in - like it's foregone conclusion. Still - I hope EU will just have a decent program financing or contributing in any shape or form to development of OSS.
- sofixa 9mo ago
  > they once again go for creating their own forks, instead of financing development of existing software then I'll know the initiative failed. Once again? When did they do that? They have been funding various open source projects (like VLC, Libre Office) for quite a while:
  - luke5441 9mo ago
    Things like LiMux, I guess
    - sofixa 9mo ago
      Was that really a fork, or just a distribution with all the configs and packages that Munich wanted and needed?
      - luke5441 9mo ago
        I don't know details, but my guess is was more the latter. The problem is that instead of having people assigned to working with Debian to make Debian useful in a government setting, they just did their own fork/distribution. Yes, the former involves a lot of Debian politics and isn't as fast because other Debian members might insist on proper/more generic solutions.
  - plastic-enjoyer 9mo ago
    I think Bavaria developed their own Linux distro instead of using an established one. It failed horrendously.
fh973 9mo ago
Europe does not need more open source, it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry. It doesn't matter if the email platform a government uses is open source, but it should be able to pick a local alternative. It does not matter if the e-ID or payments app is running on an open source mobile OS, but it should be possible to run it on a non-US one. Policy may help the European software industry, at least governments should actively work on getting away from their Microsoft addiction. Open source may be one of the options, but it is not the right model for all types of software. Blindly preferring open source may kill otherwise viable local software businesses.
- palata 9mo ago
  > it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry Because it struggles to compete with the US monopolies doesn't mean that it doesn't have a software industry. It's hard to compete with TooBigTech when they are being anti-competitive, and whenever the EU tries to apply antitrust laws, they get bullied by the US. > It does not matter if the e-ID or payments app is running on an open source mobile OS, but it should be possible to run it on a non-US one. I don't think they are talking about creating a mobile OS? But I do think that e-ID and similar government apps should be open source, so that people can trust them. > Open source may be one of the options, but it is not the right model for all types of software. Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. But my opinion is that if the taxpayer's money is used to pay for software, then that software should be open source.
  - consp 9mo ago
    > Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. Or create an open source reference implementation and leave the final solution to the market. Everyone can use the reference implementation but if you think you can do better use your own. This includes a government doing it themselves either based on the reference implementation or not.
  - cryptica 9mo ago
    > Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. But my opinion is that if the taxpayer's money is used to pay for software, then that software should be open source. Yes. The government has more than enough leverage to demand this. Skill was never the problem. The problem is bureaucracy; too many regulations and massive hidden corruption. The problem with the regulations is that they were designed with the explicit intent to stifle competition. "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" - This fact is pure corruption. I remember, when I was at university, one of the courses I took had a project management component and we did an assessment researching failed software projects and it turns out that there were a huge number of failed projects running in the hundreds of millions and even billions (and that was a lot of money at the time); always the same companies kept coming up. IMO, this is fraud, of a criminal nature. People should go to jail.
mlindner 9mo ago
I don't see how EU can develop a thriving software industry with its love for control and regulation.
- mentalgear 9mo ago
  I think this was disused a few days ago in a similar HN comment thread. Turns out, the US has way more data-tapping anti-privacy laws than the EU - only that the US more or less secretly adopted them and forbids any company from telling their end-users. Whereas you hear more about "data regulation-attempts" in the EU because it actually still has very strong privacy-rules and when trying to alter them there is a real public debate and not a hush-hush secret commission that gives security agencies access to all user data without public notification.
  - fsflover 9mo ago
    Here is the related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019#46510983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019#46510983
  - omnimus 9mo ago
    It is pointless trying to explain to corporate company man who just repeat the narrative of their bosses.
    - fsflover 9mo ago
      But it's helpful to provide the counterpoint for anyone else reading this.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  Europe already have a thriving software industry, and in fact is probably the leader when it comes to having the most influential and biggest FOSS projects, since so many of them originate in Europe :) If I had to chose between "control and regulation and healthy community of FOSS" vs "no control or regulation, and healthy community only for for-profit companies", I know what side I'm choosing.
greatgib 9mo ago
Don't know if they will get valuable feedbacks but yes, what is needed as always is money. Ever by financing projects or buying solutions that would develop them. As said by someone else, not do the usual wasteful: - Create a big global project with a tender directed at bullshit consulting companies and big groups. - Giving millions/billions to recreate a crappy version of something instead of pushing existing solutions. Also, I have the feeling that an important point is that "open source" software is Open Source, and the proper solution is to fund good OSS software or stacks wherever they come from and not be short sighted of taking to much care of the dev or project location. Even if obviously it would be better that money goes to European devs)
- pas 9mo ago
  Yep. If the EU wants to direct money to this "problem" then they need to mandate that companies have a "domestic" fallback vendor.
flowerthoughts 9mo ago
I agree with others here that focusing your eyes on _using_ open source is, at least, an incomplete view of the problem. What we (European software engineers) have been arguing, is that software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions, ought to be made fully public, including ability to tweak. Thinking that open source software will help solve your budget and/or political problem is not something we're interested in doing for free. This excerpt here: > In the last few years, it has been widely acknowledged that open source – which is a public good to be freely used, modified, and redistributed – has suggests they see it as free candy, rather than the result of love and hard work, provided for free because it's nice. Pay for what you use, especially at the government level. Of course, I strongly encourage the European governments to invest in open source. And if you're interested in giving money, I'm interested in doing work. Same as ever.
- brodouevencode 9mo ago
  The early mantras of OSS included "free as in speech" and "free as in beer".
  - mghackerlady 9mo ago
    Those were mantras of the Free Software movement. The open source movement (despite creating a lot of free software) was never about the moral stance of software freedom, but the practical benefits
- fsflover 9mo ago
  > software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions, ought to be made fully public, including ability to tweak Anyone who agrees with this should sign this petition made by Free Software Foundation Europe: https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu
  - Roark66 9mo ago
    While I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure this is actually viable. For example here in Poland the previous govt invested in huge amount of software for digital govt services. From company formation, social insurance/heathcare (things like electronic prescriptions and patient data) to tax submission at all levels. All of this is implemented using publicly documented open standards so anyone can write a client for these services, or anyone can use official Web clients, but none of the code is open source. This is in contrast to previous governments that tried to implement all of this using proprietary standards where the companies hired were paid billions to deliver a system and they ended up owning the data exchange protocol and a client they distributed in binary only form. And they also profited from commercial software that implemented their proprietary protocols. That worked (for the company hired)for taxes and they made billions. But for other stuff like medical, when they had no way to sell their proprietary standards they wasted billions and years of time and delivered nothing. Then subsequent govt threw the entire project out and built it on open standards. So based on this experience I think using well documented open data exchange standards is much more important than software itself being open source. Who cares the server side software is open source if you still can't submit your taxes with your own python script?
Havoc 9mo ago
Hopefully they can throw a couple of bucks at the foss things underpinning the internet.
- rendx 9mo ago
  They do, and have been for a while now. https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-projects/ https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-projects/ https://nlnet.nl/project/ https://nlnet.nl/project/ currently listing 1566 foss projects that have received financial support
abc123abc123 9mo ago
[flagged]
- snakeboy 9mo ago
  It's some utopian dream to think the death of the EU would decentralize power. It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony. Without the EU, the world is controlled by the US and China.
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    > It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony. How can I opt out of this "necessary evil"? I don't want to be part of this feud between powers as I don't want the EU to be a world power since in all world powers 90% of the wealth just concentrates to the top 1% anyway, so becoming one would not benefit me. Will housing be more affordable once we become a "world power"? Or fix healthcare shortages? Like for example, the public transport and healthcare where I live have been going to shit past 10 years plus housing become unaffordable. Those issues are not China's fault, Trump's fault and not Putin's fault no matter how much they try to gaslight us otherwise. Putin and Trump didn't come here and inflate our currency creating speculative bubbles that popped, our own politicians did. So no, it's not a "necessary evil", it's a manufactured one via FUD and scaremongering, to deflect blame and responsibility for failures of local politicians and copot public option in the direction the 1% financieres desire since their kids won't be on the frontline of this new world war they're trying to stir up, we'll all be just casualties and I don't want to be one.
    - pseudony 9mo ago
      Small countries lack agency and international law is being repurposed as toilet paper right now. Look at Ukraine, look at Greenland. Your view is demonstrably proven wrong. As for cost of living, name a developed country, big or small, where things are going swimmingly on that front and I’ll name you ten others where it didn’t, big and small.
fermigier 9mo ago
70 propositions from the European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud, written in part by yours truly (in early 2025, i.e. before the "Trump effect" was in full force) and published by the Commission in July 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/117980 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/11798... The document is also known as "The “Open Source Way to EU Digital Sovereignty & Competitiveness” thematic roadmap". Earlier discussion (in French): https://linuxfr.org/news/la-commission-europeenne-publie-une-feuille-de-route-sur-le-logiciel-libre https://linuxfr.org/news/la-commission-europeenne-publie-une... --- Here is the complete list of proposals from the roadmap, translated into English and organised by pillar. ### Pillar 1: Technological Development - Define technical specifications as open standards for European Open Source cloud, edge and IoT environments. - Fund interoperability pilot projects that prioritise the use of European Open Source technologies. - Require all EU-funded digital infrastructure projects to adhere to these interoperability standards. - Promote and enforce the implementation of open standards throughout the EU. - Create a ‘European Open Source Sovereignty Fund’ (EOSSF) dedicated to essential projects. [NB: this would now be called the EU-STF]. - Offer targeted grants for the security, maintenance and strengthening of the sovereignty of Open Source projects. - Foster in-depth collaboration with European academic institutions and Open Source Programme Offices (OSPOs). - Develop a practical guide for public procurement managers to evaluate European Open Source solutions. - Create sector-specific reference architectures based on European Open Source technologies. - Launch large-scale demonstration projects to illustrate the practical benefits of European Open Source solutions. - Produce and distribute comprehensive ‘playbooks’ for the deployment of European Open Source solutions. - Implement policies to actively encourage the adoption of these reference implementations in public procurement. ### Pillar 2: Skills Development - Organise industry-focused training workshops with a European emphasis on Open Source tools and platforms. - Offer targeted training grants to SMEs and public sector organisations for European Open Source skills development. - Launch certification programmes for mastery of European Open Source technologies and standards. - Establish EU-funded retraining programmes to help professionals transition into European Open Source roles. - Collaborate with industry partners to create hands-on learning and placement opportunities in Open Source. - Offer financial incentives to companies that participate in retraining programmes and use European Open Source. - Develop a European Open Source resource platform that brings together training materials, best practices, and case studies. - Integrate European Open Source principles into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) curricula from secondary school to university. - Support the creation of European Open Source ‘centres of excellence’ in universities. - Develop EU-wide coding competitions and hackathons focused on European Open Source solutions. - Introduce training on European Open Source business models into vocational training. - Create vocational training modules for European Open Source project management. - Establish certification for mastery of European Open Source business skills. ### Pillar 3: Public Procurement Practices - Launch a consultation with public sector bodies and Open Source providers to identify challenges related to public procurement. - Make ‘Public Money, Public Code, Open Source First, European Preference’ policies mandatory in public procurement. - Develop comprehensive guidelines for public procurement to evaluate and select European Open Source solutions. - Fund demonstration projects showing the success of replacing proprietary systems with European Open Source. - Establish clear criteria for defining what constitutes a ‘European’ Open Source solution. - Provide a practical guide for public procurement managers to evaluate Open Source solutions. - Collaborate with industry and standardisation bodies to develop accessible evaluation criteria for Open Source. - Create a public directory of recommended European Open Source solutions. - Encourage public sector organisations to adopt solutions developed under the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative. - Launch cross-border pre-commercial procurement (PCP) projects focused on European Open Source. - Create knowledge-sharing platforms for feedback on PCP initiatives and Open Source best practices. - Actively involve European Open Source providers in the co-design of solutions in the PCP process. - Publish guidelines to help public sector organisations manage and support European Open Source. - Promote the active participation of public sector representatives in European Open Source communities. - Support training programmes for public sector staff on project management and Open Source compliance. - Engage stakeholders to collaboratively refine and simplify procurement practices for Open Source. ### Pillar 4: Growth and Investment - Create a European Open Source Investment Platform (EOSIP) to centralise information on funding. - Organise information workshops for European SMEs and start-ups on how to obtain investment. - Establish partnerships with private investors to form a network of venture capital funds focused on European Open Source. - Expand the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative with a focus on Open Source cloud, edge and IoT. - Regularly assess the impact of funding programmes on community growth and market adoption. - Allocate dedicated funding to high-impact European Open Source projects that meet strategic needs. - Develop co-investment models that combine public funds with European private sector investments. - Launch accelerators and incubators specifically designed for European Open Source technologies. - Develop an EU-wide branding strategy to highlight the quality and sovereignty of European Open Source. - Showcase European Open Source successes on international platforms through marketing campaigns. - Form strategic partnerships with European industry organisations to increase project visibility. - Establish public-private R&D consortia on European Open Source for high-priority projects. - Offer incentives for private sector contributions to critical European Open Source initiatives. - Develop platforms for knowledge exchange and cross-sector collaboration within the European ecosystem. ### Pillar 5: Governance - Conduct vulnerability assessments for critical European Open Source projects. - Collaborate with European cybersecurity agencies to develop threat models for Open Source environments. - Publish findings and best practices from security assessments to the European ecosystem. - Offer tailored compliance advice to help European Open Source projects navigate EU regulations. - Facilitate accessibility to Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) certification for European Open Source projects. - Provide resources and support for the documentation and auditing of European projects. - Ensure stable, long-term funding for core European Open Source infrastructure. - Establish mentoring programmes focused on developing European talent for critical projects. - Create a European Open Source Advisory Board to oversee project funding and direction. - Require EU-supported European projects to adhere to transparent governance and accountability practices. - Support European community involvement in Open Source project governance. - Facilitate community input into European Open Source policy development. - Publish guidelines on best practices for managing the lifecycle of European Open Source projects. - Provide resources for responsible maintenance and end-of-life support for European projects. - Encourage comprehensive documentation and knowledge sharing within the European ecosystem.
cumo 9mo ago
Politics should never drive technical decisions unless the people involved actually understand the technology. When policy is made without that expertise, open source becomes a political slogan instead of a sustainable ecosystem.
- vanviegen 9mo ago
  I actually think it's a great idea to minimize government dependence on specific vendors at a policy level. Perhaps these policies shouldn't be too detailed, but signing away future freedom ('nobody ever fired for choosing $entranched_bigcorp') should not be the path of least resistance for decision makers.
  - cumo 9mo ago
    Fully agree!
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  At first your comment reads as negative, but you actually like this "call for evidence" then, as they're explicitly asking for feedback about it? Not sure why it reads so negative when you're actually seemingly agreeing with the submission.
  - cumo 9mo ago
    This shows that the people in charge have no idea. If they understood the topic, there would be no need for evidence.
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      Can't you have some idea, yet want to validate this with the broader ecosystem? I frequently ask people for their opinion about stuff, even when I have my opinion. Should commissions/governments not do that? Seems like a fantasy to think your government could know everything without asking the population what they think.
    - 9mo ago
GardenLetter27 9mo ago
So many strategies and initiatives, so little action.
nalekberov 9mo ago
All the European Commission is interested in is getting software cheaper or for free. If they were truly interested in freeing themselves from non-EU software, thereby preventing potential interference from (mostly) the US, they wouldn’t have chosen the path of soften the GDPR - that move mainly made the big tech happier. And don’t even get me started with Chat Control.
- vovavili 9mo ago
  Not quite. Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs overwhelmingly choose to emigrate to the US when given choice.
  - nalekberov 9mo ago
    > Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs choose to emigrate to the US when given choice. What are those harshnesses?
kittikitti 9mo ago
From my experience, people against open source often have buyers remorse. They often paid egregious sums of money for proprietary software that, to be fair, works well and includes enterprise support. When the same someone encounters the same solution but free and open source, they start rationalizing. The difference is mainly marketing, where open source projects have little to no marketing budget and are largely denied by market makers. Proprietary solutions can afford the seminars, thousands of dollars a week on ads, and other perks which increase discovery. The moral of the story is to be careful listening to people actively tarnishing open source as they are a crowd of bitter people. A tell-tale sign is that they don't talk about the benefits of proprietary technologies such as the level of customer support and technical expertise that comes with the bill and instead only bash on open source.
- zurfer 9mo ago
  "Nobody" is against open source. People are against bad products, high maintenance, high complexity... .. or against working for free without much reward. It would be great if there was a way for humanity to have and develop free open source software but it's not obvious how to do it well.
rambambram 9mo ago
The EU has Schleswig-Holstein (a German state) as an example; office software and email replaced by open source alternatives. Look overthere, I would say. But overthere is a politician who actually understands what he is talking about. I don't feel the need to provide governments/politicians with open source software who think like this: "open source – which is a public good to be freely used". Start understanding how this works, because your American and Chinese counterparts do a better job at this. By the way, don't come lazily asking for input. Go out proactively and find the answers yourself.
- NoboruWataya 9mo ago
  > By the way, don't come lazily asking for input. Go out proactively and find the answers yourself. The EU very regularly asks for input on new policy initiatives, it's one of the better aspects of the legislative/policy-making process. They are asking citizens' opinions on a policy that will potentially affect them, if you tell them to f off and do it themselves then don't be surprised when you hate the policy that comes out of it.
  - rdm_blackhole 9mo ago
    > The EU very regularly asks for input on new policy initiatives, it's one of the better aspects of the legislative/policy-making process. And then it basically ignores all the input and moves forward with policies like chat control that are widely unpopular anyway. So much for consulting the people and asking for feedback.
    - user2722 9mo ago
      Yes. Probably someone in power is getting kickbacks to ignore the public and specialists. Once that hurdle is settled, whatever the way it happens, saner people can re-use previous requests for opinion to guide them on better paths. Waste some - but not too much - of your energy poking our EU orgs to the right way.
    - 1dontnkow_ 9mo ago
      Yes but we gotta understand that sometimes some things the citizens suggest end up on the law. So we should just continuously fight to keep that happening. Additionally, the EU and its administration, is a big group of people. There are probably different people or teams pushing for this idea, which all in all, is a very good one, maybe even fellow (ex) open source contributors, and the ChatControl thing, surely comes from other groups with entirely different interests.
KronisLV 9mo ago
If I was better versed in writing and happened to be someone relevant, at the very least I’d support the viewpoint that open source is good for preventing takeovers and software dependencies turning hostile (e.g. Valkey and OpenSearch at least existing) and preventing being held financially hostage in times of uncertainty (e.g. many Linux server side distros are free and FOSS relational DBs won’t bankrupt you). Yet perhaps far too often people opt for Windows Server or SQL Server or Oracle DB, or other software like that - if you have a good reason to use them, sure, go ahead, but that shouldn’t be your default. I don’t want my tax money to be wasted so much when for at least a significant amount of projects out there, alternatives exist. I’ve literally heard people say in person that “we need paid support” even when they don’t and while I’m not sure what lead to that behavior of trying to shift blame and cover your own asses, but cut it out. If you need support so bad, get an org for FOSS projects or contribute directly in exchange for it! This also has implications on development that you normally don't think about - I have personally suffered due to having to use a shared Oracle DB for development (one dev breaking something breaks it for everyone) and not being able to easily setup containers especially because Oracle XE doesn't have feature parity and refuses to run the migrations. Just fucking use PostgreSQL, or even MariaDB. Same goes for file formats, it made me quite angry when my university mandated that I use Microsoft Office for writing my bachelor's and master's papers, when LibreOffice is mostly good enough (only caveat was the references tracking being kind of jank, but in large part due to the university having very specific requirements in regards to how the references have to be formatted; personally I'd just prefer thesis.md/LaTeX/whatever but I guess we can't have everything). Same for Windows on pretty much all the computers. My country is already poor as shit, we might as well just acknowledge that and stop overpaying for literally everything to greedy orgs. They didn't even buy local and use something like OnlyOffice or paid someone that provides managed Nextcloud hosting or whatever.
pembrook 9mo ago
I find it endlessly fascinating how governments always get lost in the symptoms of the problems at hand instead of addressing the underlying problem itself. The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market, etc). The lack of domestic EU software/hardware products sits entirely downstream of that issue. The open source community will not magically solve this problem for them. What if we stopped wasting time on anything that is not solving the core issue. The symptoms will take care of themselves after you solve the disease.
- mrks_hy 9mo ago
  How is this not solving the core issue? You need to do both. Ensure the software is made (pay devs), and if you're funding this, make sure it is licensed as a public good (free, oss).
  - pembrook 9mo ago
    The problem with putting on band-aids over core structural issues is the government projects are going to run into the same fragmentation issues that private sector ones have. Open source is not a magic wand you can wave to fix that. You only need to the solve the core issue. Unless you believe humans born on the European continent are inherently less intelligent or motivated than those born on American soil, then quite literally the problem will solve itself. All humans are the same species and respond to the same incentives. Just create similar incentives here and stop trying to top-down solve all the symptoms with bandaids after the fact. It just doesn't work. Name me one example of EU government created software that people have ever chosen to use voluntarily. Or heck, even one that people are forced to use but isn't downright terrible compared to a private alternative.
    - intended 9mo ago
      You said - > The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market… Yes incentives matter. They are not the only factor when figuring out the outcome. Competitive structures, and the type of good being traded has a bearing as well. Software is not like physical goods. Given the marginal costs of making additional units of software is effectively nil, and that network effects tend to lock users in, you will see the rise of behemoths that shrug off competition. You see more competition when it comes to startups than a stalwart like Excel or word. I can of course be wrong - but For major daily drivers type software (Gmail, word, etc.) , the incumbents aren’t going to be moved by simply increasing competition.
tommica 9mo ago
They should make it easier to run own businesses in Europe, lessen then amount of paperwork and red tape. It's impossible to start a tech business under the amount of bureaucracy they throw at you. I'd love to give it a go, but to get even started I have to pay accountants, banks, lawyers, pre-taxes, etc before I even have made a single cent.
- fsflover 9mo ago
  > They should make it easier to run own businesses in Europe, lessen then amount of paperwork and red tape. These are not the main obstacles. US monopolies are. See this article: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/
- timvdalen 9mo ago
  Is it? If you're not interested in limited liability it's 85 euros to file for a company. If you do want limited liability, you have to visit a notary to found, but even that's only like 500 euros. Sure, you have to do your taxes every year and that's annoying, but it's not _that_ hard.
  - igeligel_dev 9mo ago
    > you have to visit a notary to found Why is that even necessary in the first place? Thats what people hate about bureaucracy. Why can't we just submit a form somewhere from home and someone looks over it from a queue. In the meantime you are allowed to start your business already. Bad process here. No process is 100% times better. An async one with forgiveness is getting you 80% there.
    - pandemic_region 9mo ago
      What kind of business would you like to run that it needs to be established today and cannot wait a few weeks? There are many repercussions, social security and tax wise. Do you expect a government to keep up with a free-for-all form that creates companies ?
    - 9mo ago
henearkr 9mo ago
Very weird to see written "EU open-source sector", because any medium or large open-source project is international and includes many EU contributors. I don't think of GNU as an "US" open-source project, nor of Linux as a "Finnish" open-source project. That's just laughable.
agentultra 9mo ago
It’d be a shame if MS was compelled by the current US administration to shutdown EU users of CoPilot/365/whatever. Whole agencies within governments lose all of their data and can barely function. A move to alternatives is an imperative! I hope it works for them and stimulates their tech sector.
- pandemic_region 9mo ago
  In the same way Poetin accelerated the move from his own fossil fuels to renewable energy, Trump is accelerating the move to non-US based technology. At least in my surroundings, "non-US based company" is a big plus in the purchasing process.
  - letmetweakit 9mo ago
    Yes, I think anyone with common sense is thinking that way these days. He's going to inflict huge damage on the US economy.
  - jenadine 9mo ago
    They are accelerating from snail speed to turtle speed.
- dsign 9mo ago
  I don't think anybody understand how bad it really is. Forget about Greenland. Trump can say "give me Germany or I'll shutdown Azure ID" and we will have to give him Germany. At this point we are just praying that neither him or any of his hawks realize this.
  - vanviegen 9mo ago
    I agree that many countries are indeed very vulnerable to this, but you somehow managed to overstate the case by some orders of magnitude. Silicon Valley flipping the switch on a country would sure cause short-term chaos and longer-term significant inconvenience. But when push comes to shove, bureaucracy gets moved aside, creative workarounds pop up, and people make do, somehow. We've seen that happen during COVID-19 lockdowns. And after some time, the boycotted regions will find themselves with a healthy independent software industry. Silicon Valley's global impact would be greatly reduced, because any mildly sensible country would want to reduce its exposure and some serious competition will finally get traction. I think the hawks realize all this. Though it's of course impossible to predict what the Chaos Monkey in Chief will do.
dev_l1x_be 9mo ago
The same commission that let every megaco bribe EU officials including the head of eu? Sometimes I wonder where does the hypocrisy ends.
PeterStuer 9mo ago
If the objective is "Sovereignty", as clearly stated in the context, then Open Source is potentially a good strategy, but in itself not sufficient. E.g. Switching from Windows Server to RHEL gives you an Open Source initiative, but leaves you (arguably less, but still) dependent on the US. For Open Source to work "Sovereign" you need to establish an local independent EU maintenance, development and distribution ecosystem for the specific packages that can operate autonomously and independent of upstream.
- fleischhauf 9mo ago
  something like a European GitHub you mean? (didn't read the article)
  - lexicality 9mo ago
    It's less than two hundred words long, I promise you it's not going to take very long to read
  - PeterStuer 9mo ago
    No, I mean an entire EU software ecosystem that can keep the lights on even under extreme sanctions from US (or Russia, or China, but we are in practice mostly dependent on US). You can have your local GitHub mirror, but if projects are forced to stop exporting to and collaborating with EU developers, who in the EU will maintain and further develop the now isolated EU codebases?
phkamp 9mo ago
Here is what I submitted: I am a well known FOSS developer. At one point code I had written protected half the passwords on the entire Internet, and today around a quarter of all HTTP(S) traffic on the internet goes through software I have written ("Varnish"). That, and the fata morgana of retirement shimmering on my horizon, makes it my considered opinion that FOSS is the gift EU does not deserve, and runs a great risk of destroying on first contact. However, closed source as we know it, is not compatible with an open, free and fair society, so I am more than aboard with the EU's long overdue recognition of FOSS as the way forward and out of the grubby, greedy claws of "Big Tech" and their endless enshitification of our lives. The kind of FOSS software relevant to this discussion is usually rock steady and dependable in ways much commercial closed software, precisely because of the secrecy, can never be or become. But the human communities which produces the FOSS software are fragile, fractious, and as a general rule, composed of people who may be great programmers, but who have absolutely no experience, and no interest, in fostering and stewarding stable human communities. This is literally why there are who knows how many, different "distributions" of the Linux operating system, "window managers", "web-site frameworks" and programming languages. Therefore the absolutely most important thing for EU to understand about FOSS, is that it probably is as close to the "ideal market", in the sense of economic theories, as anything will ever come: It literally costs nothing to become a competitor. But that also means that if the EU member countries were to pick, no matter how fair and competently, a set of FOSS software to standardize on, and pour money into the people behind it, to provide the necessary resources to support and sustain the need for IT systems, for all the administrations in the EU countries, that software would instantly stop being FOSS - no matter what words the license might contain, because it would no longer be part of the market. In other words: EU cannot "switch to FOSS", it would no longer be FOSS if EU did. At the most fundamental level, the EU has three options: 1. Pick and bless a set of winners, consisting of: a) Operating system, portable to any reasonable computer architecture. b) Text-processing, suitable for tasks up to a book. c) Spreadsheet d) Email client. e) Web Browser f) Accounting software, suitable for small organizations. and fund organizations to maintain, develop and support the software for the future as open source, turning that software into infrastructure like water, power and electricity, free for all, individuals, startups and established companies alike, to use and benefit from. 2. Continuously develop/pick, bless and meticulously enforce open standards of interoperability, and then "let the competition loose". 3. Both. By providing a free baseline and de-facto reference implementations for the open standards, "the market" will be free to innovate, improve and compete, but cannot (re)create walled gardens. To everybody, me included, option two seems the ideologically "pure" choice, because we have all been brought to believe that "governments should not pick winners". But governments have always picked winners. Today all of EU has 230VAC electrical grids, because EU picked that as a winner, thereby leveling the market to everybody's benefit. Therefore I will argue, that the wise choice for EU is option three. First, it will be incredibly cheap, as in just tens of millions of Euro per year, to provide all EU citizens with a free and trustworthy software platform to run on their computers. Second, it can be done incredibly fast: From EU makes the decision, the first version can be release in a matter of months, if not weeks. Third, it will guarantee interoperability of data. Sincerely, Poul-Henning Kamp
jamesblonde 9mo ago
Subsidiarity has been a key building block of the EU and has failed the EU for unexpected reasons. Subsidiarity was pursued for accountability and to make the EU less centralized - decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible, with central authorities only stepping in when a task cannot be effectively handled locally. However, it means that here in Sweden govt bodies are all individually moving to Azure, because each one makes that local decision in their best interest. The same thing has happened all over the EU - and very few govt bodies would ever take the risk of investing in using EU cloud or data platforms. We need public procurement to help kickstart life into the Eurostack.
jillesvangurp 9mo ago
My view is that there is commodity software and niche/specialized software. You find commercial solutions for both. But OSS is great for commodity software. Everything becomes a commodity eventually. There's a lot of niche software that then goes mainstream, gets imitated by others, and becomes important to a wide range of sectors. A lot of that software usually ends up with very decent OSS alternatives. If it's worth having in OSS software form, usually somebody ends up working on it. A lot of OSS projects are already leaning heavily on contributions from individuals and companies inside the EU. That's a good thing for the EU and something to stimulate and build on. What the EU should do is keep an eye out for commodity software where it relies on non eu commercial software. Identify key areas where that is risky, e.g. communication software, IOT, or finance. And then stimulate members to switch to OSS alternatives if they exist and invest in the creation/support of such alternatives if they are important. OSS software doesn't just create itself, it needs backing from companies which could use the support in the form of grants. That could include support for non EU OSS projects. There's nothing wrong with OSS from abroad. As long as this software is properly governed and vital to the EU, the EU should ensure those projects are healthy and future proofed. It should ensure local software companies get the support they need to do the right things here. This should ensure projects that are important don't run out of funding. And the EU can stimulate OSS development into strategic new areas with incentives. And make sure that EU companies that back this are successful internationally. This turns the tables on other countries maybe depending more on EU sourced software. The EU doesn't have to follow; it can lead.
user2722 9mo ago
I think I'll use this opportunity to piggyback my opinion about [1] on my response to this call for evidence. [1] https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/287 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...
teekert 9mo ago
I see some people donating money to open source. I'm currently discussing with my bookkeeper but she says it's all personal, so I pay income tax (in the Netherlands) and then I can donate. Is this really true? Why can't I just give some money to the devs that develop the software I use in my business, as a business? It makes it twice as expensive.
kwanbix 9mo ago
As a South American, it’s striking to see how the current U.S. administration has forced other countries to confront the risks of not having their own digital infrastructure. And this isn’t just about software or the cloud. What happens if tomorrow the U.S. forbids Apple from selling iPhones outside its borders? Or starts requiring built-in backdoors or kill switchs? Scenarios like these raise a deeper question: could this push the most powerful players, the US, EU, China, and India to eventually rebuild entire technology stacks from scratch in the name of self preservation? Could this mean the end of a globalized world?
- PartiallyTyped 9mo ago
  China is on the path to doing just that, and I expect the heads of the government (or at least the people behind the scenes) in both EU and India consider this. The US has, unfortunately, proven to be a very unreliable partner.
  - kwanbix 9mo ago
    The problem isn’t only the U.S. China is also unreliable, and Russia as well. Just look at what happened to the EU with its dependence on Russian gas: once the war in Ukraine started, that dependency immediately turned into a major vulnerability.
    - PartiallyTyped 9mo ago
      I don't disagree. From my point of view, we (europeans) should focus on our collective well-being and sovereignty. Unfortunately it feels that at times, we find more to split with each other than the rest of the world.
- davisr 9mo ago
  CALEA has given the FBI backdoor access to all telecom traffic for the past 30 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
- 9mo ago
Peteragain 9mo ago
Did people here see the Cory Doctorow thing a few days back about DMCA and "Article 6 of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive"? https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/#the-new-coalition https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/#the-new-coalition Basically without open source, the rest of the world will have to keep paying a tithe to American companies, and hence tax in the USA.
mimd 9mo ago
Opensource is a bit more complex than being a "public good". They're focusing on the low cost as a jump starting point, which make me doubt their sincerity/understanding about managing that relationship healthily.
rewqaz555 9mo ago
I feel bad saying this as open source software developer, but what EU needs is in-house produced x86 compatible cpu to run the software they want as long as they want.
mmooss 9mo ago
What open source leaders can help them? For example, does Linus Torvalds still feel connected to Europe?
troyvit 9mo ago
I read the call for evidence. I have a silly question: Where does one go to supply that evidence?
- troyvit 9mo ago
  I found it! https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems/addFeedback_en?p_id=21875 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa... You need an EU account though. I got one and I'm an American so it shouldn't be too tough.
shevy-java 9mo ago
Has the EU commission still not understood that becoming a paid-by Washington lobby group, does not work for Europeans? So, why are they so slow in pushing into action here? Rather than money going into US corporations, have EU citizens work on specific open source projects, many of them, with clear goals. Simple example: libreoffice - improve interfacing with it. ALL governments, universities etc... would benefit from this. Not only in the EU but elsewhere too. I don't understand this insane slowness here, unless lobbyists run Brussels already.
elric 9mo ago
Evidence of what? Of the existence of open source? Of "open source" what? Software? Hardware? Its usage? The the communities behind various open source projects?
drnick1 9mo ago
Maybe they should start by outlawing Google Play Integrity then. This will immediately make FOSS Android phones more useful in Europe.
hsuduebc2 9mo ago
I consider much bigger problem dependence on foreign ecosystems and data storages. This is of course useful but I would consider much more efficient some kind of incentives to build domestic alternative to ms office cloud solution which basically run all corps.
qwery 9mo ago
This sounds more negative than I want it to, but it seems like this is missing the forest for the trees. There's absolutely a real problem here and I am fully supportive of projects seeking to address this. Governments around the world throw public money at private enterprise to solve all of their IT problems. This sounds good, I guess, to the Americans in the room. Until recently the US actually had a great number of "open source" projects -- NASA, NOAA, come to mind (the weather satellites are still going). Open projects, owned by the people -- this is the obviously correct way to do things. You can engage the business sector when it makes sense to do so, but a country shouldn't be run by -- be dependent on -- a Microsoft, or a PricewaterhouseCoopers. Then they delete the production database and write the people a post mortem about how they'll improve for next time. Then they profit from war crimes that your government even quietly admits are a bad thing occasionally. Then they <if you aren't aware of the UK post office scandal, you should be>. "Open source" isn't a solution. Free software would be a better look. But the entire world is completely dependent on IT systems and goverments don't employ enough software developers. Not "developers" to "refresh" the UI again, not Autodesk certified Call of Duty Black Ops 9 Micopilot Copilot 666 developers -- normal boring software developers -- public servants. Make it dull. It's your people you're fucking with. Flashy app bad, boring UI good -- it's a tax return. The thing that should be happening is serious public sector software development. By the people, for the people. Keep it in-house. I shouldn't have to say to keep it open. It belongs to the people.
mjashanks 9mo ago
I feel like now, more than ever, the time is right for the EU's move to open-source to succeed. Linux Desktop is now simply better than Windows, by far. Open office is good. There are many high-quality, commercially supported open-source products available now, developed by full-time, highly talented engineers. There's every chance that this will work & breaking up oligopolies is great for everyone, not just Europe. I wrote about this recently if you're interested: https://budibase.com/blog/updates/eu-digital-sovereignty-and-oss/ https://budibase.com/blog/updates/eu-digital-sovereignty-and...

447 points by pabs3 9mo ago

To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it actually comes down to it are all for communism ie open source

plastic-enjoyer 9mo ago
Open source = communism is the dumbest take I've read on HN lmao
madspindel 9mo ago
I would argue open source is decentralization and proprietary is centralization. In other words, open source is libertarianism and proprietary is communism. And this move is to move from Big Tech/"Big State" to smaller alternatives.
- watwut 9mo ago
  > proprietary is communism. Maybe we should not twist ourselves to logical pretzels to redefine terms like that.
ngruhn 9mo ago
Just because it's free? Let's talk again when all open source projects are funded and controlled by the state with zero competition between them and no consumer choice. Only one Linux distro, only one database, only one web framework, etc. And it's decided top-down from the state what to work on. I doubt though that these projects would have started in the first place in a communist setting.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  "The" state, with no competition, like there's only one state? Belgium isn't big enough to realistically have its own linux, but France and Germany are.
  - pepa65 9mo ago
    Of course it's big enough. Why would it not be big enough??
    - ben_w 9mo ago
      All the usual reasons for comparative advantage, plus have you seen the size of OS codebases these days?
  - integralid 9mo ago
    North Korea has its own Linux. Google has its own Linux. There are Linux distributions maintained by a single person. Belgium will do fine.
    - ben_w 9mo ago
      Maintained, with heavy leaning on other people having actually written all the stuff, enabled by an open market. The hypothetical specifically precludes that.
- lompad 9mo ago
  There is no reason such a state would have to set things up this way. As an example: you probably know that germany has socialized healthcare. It is, however, not implemented as a single-payer model. Instead there are tons of different insurances competing with each other, while having a highly regulated floor of what they MUST offer. Is the model perfect? Hell no, it has tons of issues - though overall it's pretty solid. My point is just that social policies and "no internal competition ever" does absolutely not have to go hand in hand. There is a massive middle ground. See: social democracy as a concept and in its current implementation.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - keybored 9mo ago
    And social democracy forked from the socialist tradition over half a century ago (GGP[1] said socialism/communism). So both you and GP are wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551378
    - lompad 9mo ago
      Problem here being that those terms aren't used as defined in regular discourse. Language changes and casual use differs from academic use. When on an american-centric board anybody writes about "communism", I assume they refer to anything from marxism to stalinism to socialism to democratic socialism to social democracy up to anything non-hyper-capitalist. Not great, but sadly something to be taken into consideration. Especially when looked at in context - parent was criticizing the EU initiative by essentially claiming something like that leads to a kind of monoculture like in a planned economy reminiscent of "communism", here probably meaning stalinism, from what I assume is a radical libertarian position. Which tells me the person is likely american, implying a rather ... minimal awareness of the nuance here. Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
      - 9mo ago
- xbmcuser 9mo ago
  Yours and others knee jerk reaction proves my point you are conflating autocracy with communism/socialism.
- keybored 9mo ago
  This is as usual confused. People keep discussing communism as if they were (via analogy) talking about capitalism being about men in suites with fake smiles, green paper, bank vaults, and powerpoint presentations. Every time people have to respond with paragraphs upon paragraphs just unrolling all that nonsense. Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
Hamuko 9mo ago
Open source is not communism. Communism would entail that we collectively own Linux, which we don't. It's private property, and if we want to use the code, we need to abide by its licensing terms. Licensing terms that are built upon the existence of copyright, a concept that allows for private ownership of intellectual property.
- Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
  The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright. If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all.
  - andsoitis 9mo ago
    > If copyright law were fixed, we wouldn't need those terms at all. Why do you think so?
    - Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
      Because > 'The licensing terms exist as a patch on copyright.' Upstreaming a patch implies you no longer need to maintain it. Law doesn't quite work the same as software, but in this case the metaphor holds.
salvozappa 9mo ago
This is so reductive. Open source has nothing to do with communism.
- saubeidl 9mo ago
  As a socialist, I would disagree. Communism is about a would-be utopia after the workers own the means of production. For us tech workers, it could be argued that the means of production are source code. Thus, there is a socialist aspect to open source - but that's a good thing!
  - eudamoniac 9mo ago
    The means of production are computers, no?

Phelinofist 9mo ago

One more step in the right direction, good

raverbashing 9mo ago

The first comment on the link is much more helpful than the article https://lwn.net/Articles/1053131/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1053131/ (yes it seems that comments are subarticles)

ranguna 9mo ago

I'm going to send them my wishlist to see what happens. I'm not optimistic about this, but I'm not pessimistic either and am very curious to see what happens.

Ylpertnodi 9mo ago
Can we see your wishlist?
- ranguna 9mo ago
  I don't have one yet, unfortunately. But it's definitely going to include immich (not EU software I think), nextcloud, some form of email server, a secure chat app (which I don't think the EU has), mastodon, an android spinoff like GrapheneOS, Linux (ofc), open source EU LLMs, and I don't know much else, I'll have to think about it more.

tomaytotomato 9mo ago

Maybe the EU can develop its own version of Linux OS, just like North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS -- edit When legislators start getting involved they will want to inevitably have their "own" version of something and their own SLAs and contracts. The reason they went with Microsoft/IBM/Oracle and others back in the day for software solutions is; they know on a piece of paper what they are getting, and who they can blame if they don't get it. With Opensource OS and software, even with auditing and stuff, there is no way to blame anyone apart from end-users. For politicians and bureacracts, that is a scary thing, as they will be the ones to blame (read: asses on the line) The consultation is great and all but As someone who has watched on the sidelines how Opensource governance turns projects into hydra monsters (Redhat, Jakarta EE). I wouldn't be surprised in a few years we will have a EU approved OS that is controlled by bureaucracts. But who knows, maybe they will just become end users of a popular distro and other opensource software.

juliangmp 9mo ago
What for? Plenty of maintainers for various distros are from Europe and/or the EU. For example: https://map.debian.net/ https://map.debian.net/
- Mashimo 9mo ago
  What is this map? Almost every city in DK and Sweden shows "Kåre Olsen"
supermatt 9mo ago
Finland (where Linux comes from) is in the EU. There are also a few European linux distributions you may have heard of: e.g. Debian, SUSE, Ubuntu (UK), Mandrake/Mandriva/Mageia, Knoppix, etc.
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  > Ubuntu (UK) This is an EU initiative, Ubuntu probably isn't included.

pferde 9mo ago

One of the most useful steps would be to support codeforges like Github on European soil, and development of the ForgeFed project, so that those forges can talk to each other.

susanthenerd 9mo ago
Codeberg and Forjeo have a foundation in Germany
- enriquto 9mo ago
  And sourcehut in the Netherlands!
- juliangmp 9mo ago
  There was a grant in 2023 which was supported by the European Comission. So I think the topic itself isn't entirely unknown. https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/ https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/
  - menaerus 9mo ago
    From https://nlnet.nl/fediversity https://nlnet.nl/fediversity > We are seeking project proposals between 5.000 and 50.000 euro's — which should get you on your way. Am I the only one to think this is completely ridiculous amount of money? So, you want me to leave my very well paid job to innovate for the sake of EU competitiveness but you don't to invest more than 50k EUR (max grant). And as an individual you don't even stand a chance so this 50k EUR has to be distributed across several people. Did I get this right? Ah, and I almost forgot about the double standards ... the same EU commission is on a spending spree when it comes to the development of a fkn EU website which you use to apply for these funds. Each Brussels-based developer doing that very innovative work is paid ~100k EUR. What a blasphemy.
    - notahacker 9mo ago
      No, they don't want to you leave your very well paid job for this grant, they want to chuck a few bounties at some FOSS projects and pay for some people to attend hackathons or conferences if they can fill in a form giving sufficiently compelling reasons. How dare they!

Xelbair 9mo ago

We'll see how it goes this time. If they once again go for creating their own forks, instead of financing development of existing software then I'll know the initiative failed. Also imho their 'questions' mentioned in the comment kinda feel like they have answer baked in - like it's foregone conclusion. Still - I hope EU will just have a decent program financing or contributing in any shape or form to development of OSS.

sofixa 9mo ago
> they once again go for creating their own forks, instead of financing development of existing software then I'll know the initiative failed. Once again? When did they do that? They have been funding various open source projects (like VLC, Libre Office) for quite a while:
- luke5441 9mo ago
  Things like LiMux, I guess
  - sofixa 9mo ago
    Was that really a fork, or just a distribution with all the configs and packages that Munich wanted and needed?
    - luke5441 9mo ago
      I don't know details, but my guess is was more the latter. The problem is that instead of having people assigned to working with Debian to make Debian useful in a government setting, they just did their own fork/distribution. Yes, the former involves a lot of Debian politics and isn't as fast because other Debian members might insist on proper/more generic solutions.
- plastic-enjoyer 9mo ago
  I think Bavaria developed their own Linux distro instead of using an established one. It failed horrendously.

fh973 9mo ago

Europe does not need more open source, it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry. It doesn't matter if the email platform a government uses is open source, but it should be able to pick a local alternative. It does not matter if the e-ID or payments app is running on an open source mobile OS, but it should be possible to run it on a non-US one. Policy may help the European software industry, at least governments should actively work on getting away from their Microsoft addiction. Open source may be one of the options, but it is not the right model for all types of software. Blindly preferring open source may kill otherwise viable local software businesses.

palata 9mo ago
> it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry Because it struggles to compete with the US monopolies doesn't mean that it doesn't have a software industry. It's hard to compete with TooBigTech when they are being anti-competitive, and whenever the EU tries to apply antitrust laws, they get bullied by the US. > It does not matter if the e-ID or payments app is running on an open source mobile OS, but it should be possible to run it on a non-US one. I don't think they are talking about creating a mobile OS? But I do think that e-ID and similar government apps should be open source, so that people can trust them. > Open source may be one of the options, but it is not the right model for all types of software. Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. But my opinion is that if the taxpayer's money is used to pay for software, then that software should be open source.
- consp 9mo ago
  > Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. Or create an open source reference implementation and leave the final solution to the market. Everyone can use the reference implementation but if you think you can do better use your own. This includes a government doing it themselves either based on the reference implementation or not.
- cryptica 9mo ago
  > Agreed, it does not necessarily have to be open source. But my opinion is that if the taxpayer's money is used to pay for software, then that software should be open source. Yes. The government has more than enough leverage to demand this. Skill was never the problem. The problem is bureaucracy; too many regulations and massive hidden corruption. The problem with the regulations is that they were designed with the explicit intent to stifle competition. "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" - This fact is pure corruption. I remember, when I was at university, one of the courses I took had a project management component and we did an assessment researching failed software projects and it turns out that there were a huge number of failed projects running in the hundreds of millions and even billions (and that was a lot of money at the time); always the same companies kept coming up. IMO, this is fraud, of a criminal nature. People should go to jail.

mlindner 9mo ago

I don't see how EU can develop a thriving software industry with its love for control and regulation.

mentalgear 9mo ago
I think this was disused a few days ago in a similar HN comment thread. Turns out, the US has way more data-tapping anti-privacy laws than the EU - only that the US more or less secretly adopted them and forbids any company from telling their end-users. Whereas you hear more about "data regulation-attempts" in the EU because it actually still has very strong privacy-rules and when trying to alter them there is a real public debate and not a hush-hush secret commission that gives security agencies access to all user data without public notification.
- fsflover 9mo ago
  Here is the related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019#46510983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509019#46510983
- omnimus 9mo ago
  It is pointless trying to explain to corporate company man who just repeat the narrative of their bosses.
  - fsflover 9mo ago
    But it's helpful to provide the counterpoint for anyone else reading this.
embedding-shape 9mo ago
Europe already have a thriving software industry, and in fact is probably the leader when it comes to having the most influential and biggest FOSS projects, since so many of them originate in Europe :) If I had to chose between "control and regulation and healthy community of FOSS" vs "no control or regulation, and healthy community only for for-profit companies", I know what side I'm choosing.

greatgib 9mo ago

Don't know if they will get valuable feedbacks but yes, what is needed as always is money. Ever by financing projects or buying solutions that would develop them. As said by someone else, not do the usual wasteful: - Create a big global project with a tender directed at bullshit consulting companies and big groups. - Giving millions/billions to recreate a crappy version of something instead of pushing existing solutions. Also, I have the feeling that an important point is that "open source" software is Open Source, and the proper solution is to fund good OSS software or stacks wherever they come from and not be short sighted of taking to much care of the dev or project location. Even if obviously it would be better that money goes to European devs)

pas 9mo ago
Yep. If the EU wants to direct money to this "problem" then they need to mandate that companies have a "domestic" fallback vendor.

flowerthoughts 9mo ago

I agree with others here that focusing your eyes on _using_ open source is, at least, an incomplete view of the problem. What we (European software engineers) have been arguing, is that software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions, ought to be made fully public, including ability to tweak. Thinking that open source software will help solve your budget and/or political problem is not something we're interested in doing for free. This excerpt here: > In the last few years, it has been widely acknowledged that open source – which is a public good to be freely used, modified, and redistributed – has suggests they see it as free candy, rather than the result of love and hard work, provided for free because it's nice. Pay for what you use, especially at the government level. Of course, I strongly encourage the European governments to invest in open source. And if you're interested in giving money, I'm interested in doing work. Same as ever.

brodouevencode 9mo ago
The early mantras of OSS included "free as in speech" and "free as in beer".
- mghackerlady 9mo ago
  Those were mantras of the Free Software movement. The open source movement (despite creating a lot of free software) was never about the moral stance of software freedom, but the practical benefits
fsflover 9mo ago
> software that is funded by public means, such as from universities or institutions, ought to be made fully public, including ability to tweak Anyone who agrees with this should sign this petition made by Free Software Foundation Europe: https://publiccode.eu https://publiccode.eu
- Roark66 9mo ago
  While I agree with the sentiment I'm not sure this is actually viable. For example here in Poland the previous govt invested in huge amount of software for digital govt services. From company formation, social insurance/heathcare (things like electronic prescriptions and patient data) to tax submission at all levels. All of this is implemented using publicly documented open standards so anyone can write a client for these services, or anyone can use official Web clients, but none of the code is open source. This is in contrast to previous governments that tried to implement all of this using proprietary standards where the companies hired were paid billions to deliver a system and they ended up owning the data exchange protocol and a client they distributed in binary only form. And they also profited from commercial software that implemented their proprietary protocols. That worked (for the company hired)for taxes and they made billions. But for other stuff like medical, when they had no way to sell their proprietary standards they wasted billions and years of time and delivered nothing. Then subsequent govt threw the entire project out and built it on open standards. So based on this experience I think using well documented open data exchange standards is much more important than software itself being open source. Who cares the server side software is open source if you still can't submit your taxes with your own python script?

Havoc 9mo ago

Hopefully they can throw a couple of bucks at the foss things underpinning the internet.

rendx 9mo ago
They do, and have been for a while now. https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-projects/ https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-projects/ https://nlnet.nl/project/ https://nlnet.nl/project/ currently listing 1566 foss projects that have received financial support

abc123abc123 9mo ago

[flagged]

snakeboy 9mo ago
It's some utopian dream to think the death of the EU would decentralize power. It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony. Without the EU, the world is controlled by the US and China.
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  > It's currently a necessary evil to put pressure on the already centralized power of the US global hegemony. How can I opt out of this "necessary evil"? I don't want to be part of this feud between powers as I don't want the EU to be a world power since in all world powers 90% of the wealth just concentrates to the top 1% anyway, so becoming one would not benefit me. Will housing be more affordable once we become a "world power"? Or fix healthcare shortages? Like for example, the public transport and healthcare where I live have been going to shit past 10 years plus housing become unaffordable. Those issues are not China's fault, Trump's fault and not Putin's fault no matter how much they try to gaslight us otherwise. Putin and Trump didn't come here and inflate our currency creating speculative bubbles that popped, our own politicians did. So no, it's not a "necessary evil", it's a manufactured one via FUD and scaremongering, to deflect blame and responsibility for failures of local politicians and copot public option in the direction the 1% financieres desire since their kids won't be on the frontline of this new world war they're trying to stir up, we'll all be just casualties and I don't want to be one.
  - pseudony 9mo ago
    Small countries lack agency and international law is being repurposed as toilet paper right now. Look at Ukraine, look at Greenland. Your view is demonstrably proven wrong. As for cost of living, name a developed country, big or small, where things are going swimmingly on that front and I’ll name you ten others where it didn’t, big and small.

fermigier 9mo ago

70 propositions from the European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud, written in part by yours truly (in early 2025, i.e. before the "Trump effect" was in full force) and published by the Commission in July 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/117980 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/11798... The document is also known as "The “Open Source Way to EU Digital Sovereignty & Competitiveness” thematic roadmap". Earlier discussion (in French): https://linuxfr.org/news/la-commission-europeenne-publie-une-feuille-de-route-sur-le-logiciel-libre https://linuxfr.org/news/la-commission-europeenne-publie-une... --- Here is the complete list of proposals from the roadmap, translated into English and organised by pillar. ### Pillar 1: Technological Development - Define technical specifications as open standards for European Open Source cloud, edge and IoT environments. - Fund interoperability pilot projects that prioritise the use of European Open Source technologies. - Require all EU-funded digital infrastructure projects to adhere to these interoperability standards. - Promote and enforce the implementation of open standards throughout the EU. - Create a ‘European Open Source Sovereignty Fund’ (EOSSF) dedicated to essential projects. [NB: this would now be called the EU-STF]. - Offer targeted grants for the security, maintenance and strengthening of the sovereignty of Open Source projects. - Foster in-depth collaboration with European academic institutions and Open Source Programme Offices (OSPOs). - Develop a practical guide for public procurement managers to evaluate European Open Source solutions. - Create sector-specific reference architectures based on European Open Source technologies. - Launch large-scale demonstration projects to illustrate the practical benefits of European Open Source solutions. - Produce and distribute comprehensive ‘playbooks’ for the deployment of European Open Source solutions. - Implement policies to actively encourage the adoption of these reference implementations in public procurement. ### Pillar 2: Skills Development - Organise industry-focused training workshops with a European emphasis on Open Source tools and platforms. - Offer targeted training grants to SMEs and public sector organisations for European Open Source skills development. - Launch certification programmes for mastery of European Open Source technologies and standards. - Establish EU-funded retraining programmes to help professionals transition into European Open Source roles. - Collaborate with industry partners to create hands-on learning and placement opportunities in Open Source. - Offer financial incentives to companies that participate in retraining programmes and use European Open Source. - Develop a European Open Source resource platform that brings together training materials, best practices, and case studies. - Integrate European Open Source principles into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) curricula from secondary school to university. - Support the creation of European Open Source ‘centres of excellence’ in universities. - Develop EU-wide coding competitions and hackathons focused on European Open Source solutions. - Introduce training on European Open Source business models into vocational training. - Create vocational training modules for European Open Source project management. - Establish certification for mastery of European Open Source business skills. ### Pillar 3: Public Procurement Practices - Launch a consultation with public sector bodies and Open Source providers to identify challenges related to public procurement. - Make ‘Public Money, Public Code, Open Source First, European Preference’ policies mandatory in public procurement. - Develop comprehensive guidelines for public procurement to evaluate and select European Open Source solutions. - Fund demonstration projects showing the success of replacing proprietary systems with European Open Source. - Establish clear criteria for defining what constitutes a ‘European’ Open Source solution. - Provide a practical guide for public procurement managers to evaluate Open Source solutions. - Collaborate with industry and standardisation bodies to develop accessible evaluation criteria for Open Source. - Create a public directory of recommended European Open Source solutions. - Encourage public sector organisations to adopt solutions developed under the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative. - Launch cross-border pre-commercial procurement (PCP) projects focused on European Open Source. - Create knowledge-sharing platforms for feedback on PCP initiatives and Open Source best practices. - Actively involve European Open Source providers in the co-design of solutions in the PCP process. - Publish guidelines to help public sector organisations manage and support European Open Source. - Promote the active participation of public sector representatives in European Open Source communities. - Support training programmes for public sector staff on project management and Open Source compliance. - Engage stakeholders to collaboratively refine and simplify procurement practices for Open Source. ### Pillar 4: Growth and Investment - Create a European Open Source Investment Platform (EOSIP) to centralise information on funding. - Organise information workshops for European SMEs and start-ups on how to obtain investment. - Establish partnerships with private investors to form a network of venture capital funds focused on European Open Source. - Expand the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative with a focus on Open Source cloud, edge and IoT. - Regularly assess the impact of funding programmes on community growth and market adoption. - Allocate dedicated funding to high-impact European Open Source projects that meet strategic needs. - Develop co-investment models that combine public funds with European private sector investments. - Launch accelerators and incubators specifically designed for European Open Source technologies. - Develop an EU-wide branding strategy to highlight the quality and sovereignty of European Open Source. - Showcase European Open Source successes on international platforms through marketing campaigns. - Form strategic partnerships with European industry organisations to increase project visibility. - Establish public-private R&D consortia on European Open Source for high-priority projects. - Offer incentives for private sector contributions to critical European Open Source initiatives. - Develop platforms for knowledge exchange and cross-sector collaboration within the European ecosystem. ### Pillar 5: Governance - Conduct vulnerability assessments for critical European Open Source projects. - Collaborate with European cybersecurity agencies to develop threat models for Open Source environments. - Publish findings and best practices from security assessments to the European ecosystem. - Offer tailored compliance advice to help European Open Source projects navigate EU regulations. - Facilitate accessibility to Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) certification for European Open Source projects. - Provide resources and support for the documentation and auditing of European projects. - Ensure stable, long-term funding for core European Open Source infrastructure. - Establish mentoring programmes focused on developing European talent for critical projects. - Create a European Open Source Advisory Board to oversee project funding and direction. - Require EU-supported European projects to adhere to transparent governance and accountability practices. - Support European community involvement in Open Source project governance. - Facilitate community input into European Open Source policy development. - Publish guidelines on best practices for managing the lifecycle of European Open Source projects. - Provide resources for responsible maintenance and end-of-life support for European projects. - Encourage comprehensive documentation and knowledge sharing within the European ecosystem.

cumo 9mo ago

Politics should never drive technical decisions unless the people involved actually understand the technology. When policy is made without that expertise, open source becomes a political slogan instead of a sustainable ecosystem.

vanviegen 9mo ago
I actually think it's a great idea to minimize government dependence on specific vendors at a policy level. Perhaps these policies shouldn't be too detailed, but signing away future freedom ('nobody ever fired for choosing $entranched_bigcorp') should not be the path of least resistance for decision makers.
- cumo 9mo ago
  Fully agree!
embedding-shape 9mo ago
At first your comment reads as negative, but you actually like this "call for evidence" then, as they're explicitly asking for feedback about it? Not sure why it reads so negative when you're actually seemingly agreeing with the submission.
- cumo 9mo ago
  This shows that the people in charge have no idea. If they understood the topic, there would be no need for evidence.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    Can't you have some idea, yet want to validate this with the broader ecosystem? I frequently ask people for their opinion about stuff, even when I have my opinion. Should commissions/governments not do that? Seems like a fantasy to think your government could know everything without asking the population what they think.
  - 9mo ago

GardenLetter27 9mo ago

So many strategies and initiatives, so little action.

nalekberov 9mo ago

All the European Commission is interested in is getting software cheaper or for free. If they were truly interested in freeing themselves from non-EU software, thereby preventing potential interference from (mostly) the US, they wouldn’t have chosen the path of soften the GDPR - that move mainly made the big tech happier. And don’t even get me started with Chat Control.

vovavili 9mo ago
Not quite. Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs overwhelmingly choose to emigrate to the US when given choice.
- nalekberov 9mo ago
  > Harshness of regulations like GDPR is perhaps the primary reason why European tech entrepreneurs choose to emigrate to the US when given choice. What are those harshnesses?

kittikitti 9mo ago

From my experience, people against open source often have buyers remorse. They often paid egregious sums of money for proprietary software that, to be fair, works well and includes enterprise support. When the same someone encounters the same solution but free and open source, they start rationalizing. The difference is mainly marketing, where open source projects have little to no marketing budget and are largely denied by market makers. Proprietary solutions can afford the seminars, thousands of dollars a week on ads, and other perks which increase discovery. The moral of the story is to be careful listening to people actively tarnishing open source as they are a crowd of bitter people. A tell-tale sign is that they don't talk about the benefits of proprietary technologies such as the level of customer support and technical expertise that comes with the bill and instead only bash on open source.

zurfer 9mo ago
"Nobody" is against open source. People are against bad products, high maintenance, high complexity... .. or against working for free without much reward. It would be great if there was a way for humanity to have and develop free open source software but it's not obvious how to do it well.

rambambram 9mo ago

The EU has Schleswig-Holstein (a German state) as an example; office software and email replaced by open source alternatives. Look overthere, I would say. But overthere is a politician who actually understands what he is talking about. I don't feel the need to provide governments/politicians with open source software who think like this: "open source – which is a public good to be freely used". Start understanding how this works, because your American and Chinese counterparts do a better job at this. By the way, don't come lazily asking for input. Go out proactively and find the answers yourself.

NoboruWataya 9mo ago
> By the way, don't come lazily asking for input. Go out proactively and find the answers yourself. The EU very regularly asks for input on new policy initiatives, it's one of the better aspects of the legislative/policy-making process. They are asking citizens' opinions on a policy that will potentially affect them, if you tell them to f off and do it themselves then don't be surprised when you hate the policy that comes out of it.
- rdm_blackhole 9mo ago
  > The EU very regularly asks for input on new policy initiatives, it's one of the better aspects of the legislative/policy-making process. And then it basically ignores all the input and moves forward with policies like chat control that are widely unpopular anyway. So much for consulting the people and asking for feedback.
  - user2722 9mo ago
    Yes. Probably someone in power is getting kickbacks to ignore the public and specialists. Once that hurdle is settled, whatever the way it happens, saner people can re-use previous requests for opinion to guide them on better paths. Waste some - but not too much - of your energy poking our EU orgs to the right way.
  - 1dontnkow_ 9mo ago
    Yes but we gotta understand that sometimes some things the citizens suggest end up on the law. So we should just continuously fight to keep that happening. Additionally, the EU and its administration, is a big group of people. There are probably different people or teams pushing for this idea, which all in all, is a very good one, maybe even fellow (ex) open source contributors, and the ChatControl thing, surely comes from other groups with entirely different interests.

KronisLV 9mo ago

If I was better versed in writing and happened to be someone relevant, at the very least I’d support the viewpoint that open source is good for preventing takeovers and software dependencies turning hostile (e.g. Valkey and OpenSearch at least existing) and preventing being held financially hostage in times of uncertainty (e.g. many Linux server side distros are free and FOSS relational DBs won’t bankrupt you). Yet perhaps far too often people opt for Windows Server or SQL Server or Oracle DB, or other software like that - if you have a good reason to use them, sure, go ahead, but that shouldn’t be your default. I don’t want my tax money to be wasted so much when for at least a significant amount of projects out there, alternatives exist. I’ve literally heard people say in person that “we need paid support” even when they don’t and while I’m not sure what lead to that behavior of trying to shift blame and cover your own asses, but cut it out. If you need support so bad, get an org for FOSS projects or contribute directly in exchange for it! This also has implications on development that you normally don't think about - I have personally suffered due to having to use a shared Oracle DB for development (one dev breaking something breaks it for everyone) and not being able to easily setup containers especially because Oracle XE doesn't have feature parity and refuses to run the migrations. Just fucking use PostgreSQL, or even MariaDB. Same goes for file formats, it made me quite angry when my university mandated that I use Microsoft Office for writing my bachelor's and master's papers, when LibreOffice is mostly good enough (only caveat was the references tracking being kind of jank, but in large part due to the university having very specific requirements in regards to how the references have to be formatted; personally I'd just prefer thesis.md/LaTeX/whatever but I guess we can't have everything). Same for Windows on pretty much all the computers. My country is already poor as shit, we might as well just acknowledge that and stop overpaying for literally everything to greedy orgs. They didn't even buy local and use something like OnlyOffice or paid someone that provides managed Nextcloud hosting or whatever.

pembrook 9mo ago

I find it endlessly fascinating how governments always get lost in the symptoms of the problems at hand instead of addressing the underlying problem itself. The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market, etc). The lack of domestic EU software/hardware products sits entirely downstream of that issue. The open source community will not magically solve this problem for them. What if we stopped wasting time on anything that is not solving the core issue. The symptoms will take care of themselves after you solve the disease.

mrks_hy 9mo ago
How is this not solving the core issue? You need to do both. Ensure the software is made (pay devs), and if you're funding this, make sure it is licensed as a public good (free, oss).
- pembrook 9mo ago
  The problem with putting on band-aids over core structural issues is the government projects are going to run into the same fragmentation issues that private sector ones have. Open source is not a magic wand you can wave to fix that. You only need to the solve the core issue. Unless you believe humans born on the European continent are inherently less intelligent or motivated than those born on American soil, then quite literally the problem will solve itself. All humans are the same species and respond to the same incentives. Just create similar incentives here and stop trying to top-down solve all the symptoms with bandaids after the fact. It just doesn't work. Name me one example of EU government created software that people have ever chosen to use voluntarily. Or heck, even one that people are forced to use but isn't downright terrible compared to a private alternative.
  - intended 9mo ago
    You said - > The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market… Yes incentives matter. They are not the only factor when figuring out the outcome. Competitive structures, and the type of good being traded has a bearing as well. Software is not like physical goods. Given the marginal costs of making additional units of software is effectively nil, and that network effects tend to lock users in, you will see the rise of behemoths that shrug off competition. You see more competition when it comes to startups than a stalwart like Excel or word. I can of course be wrong - but For major daily drivers type software (Gmail, word, etc.) , the incumbents aren’t going to be moved by simply increasing competition.

tommica 9mo ago

They should make it easier to run own businesses in Europe, lessen then amount of paperwork and red tape. It's impossible to start a tech business under the amount of bureaucracy they throw at you. I'd love to give it a go, but to get even started I have to pay accountants, banks, lawyers, pre-taxes, etc before I even have made a single cent.

fsflover 9mo ago
> They should make it easier to run own businesses in Europe, lessen then amount of paperwork and red tape. These are not the main obstacles. US monopolies are. See this article: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/ https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/
timvdalen 9mo ago
Is it? If you're not interested in limited liability it's 85 euros to file for a company. If you do want limited liability, you have to visit a notary to found, but even that's only like 500 euros. Sure, you have to do your taxes every year and that's annoying, but it's not _that_ hard.
- igeligel_dev 9mo ago
  > you have to visit a notary to found Why is that even necessary in the first place? Thats what people hate about bureaucracy. Why can't we just submit a form somewhere from home and someone looks over it from a queue. In the meantime you are allowed to start your business already. Bad process here. No process is 100% times better. An async one with forgiveness is getting you 80% there.
  - pandemic_region 9mo ago
    What kind of business would you like to run that it needs to be established today and cannot wait a few weeks? There are many repercussions, social security and tax wise. Do you expect a government to keep up with a free-for-all form that creates companies ?
  - 9mo ago

henearkr 9mo ago

Very weird to see written "EU open-source sector", because any medium or large open-source project is international and includes many EU contributors. I don't think of GNU as an "US" open-source project, nor of Linux as a "Finnish" open-source project. That's just laughable.

agentultra 9mo ago

It’d be a shame if MS was compelled by the current US administration to shutdown EU users of CoPilot/365/whatever. Whole agencies within governments lose all of their data and can barely function. A move to alternatives is an imperative! I hope it works for them and stimulates their tech sector.

pandemic_region 9mo ago
In the same way Poetin accelerated the move from his own fossil fuels to renewable energy, Trump is accelerating the move to non-US based technology. At least in my surroundings, "non-US based company" is a big plus in the purchasing process.
- letmetweakit 9mo ago
  Yes, I think anyone with common sense is thinking that way these days. He's going to inflict huge damage on the US economy.
- jenadine 9mo ago
  They are accelerating from snail speed to turtle speed.
dsign 9mo ago
I don't think anybody understand how bad it really is. Forget about Greenland. Trump can say "give me Germany or I'll shutdown Azure ID" and we will have to give him Germany. At this point we are just praying that neither him or any of his hawks realize this.
- vanviegen 9mo ago
  I agree that many countries are indeed very vulnerable to this, but you somehow managed to overstate the case by some orders of magnitude. Silicon Valley flipping the switch on a country would sure cause short-term chaos and longer-term significant inconvenience. But when push comes to shove, bureaucracy gets moved aside, creative workarounds pop up, and people make do, somehow. We've seen that happen during COVID-19 lockdowns. And after some time, the boycotted regions will find themselves with a healthy independent software industry. Silicon Valley's global impact would be greatly reduced, because any mildly sensible country would want to reduce its exposure and some serious competition will finally get traction. I think the hawks realize all this. Though it's of course impossible to predict what the Chaos Monkey in Chief will do.

dev_l1x_be 9mo ago

The same commission that let every megaco bribe EU officials including the head of eu? Sometimes I wonder where does the hypocrisy ends.

PeterStuer 9mo ago

If the objective is "Sovereignty", as clearly stated in the context, then Open Source is potentially a good strategy, but in itself not sufficient. E.g. Switching from Windows Server to RHEL gives you an Open Source initiative, but leaves you (arguably less, but still) dependent on the US. For Open Source to work "Sovereign" you need to establish an local independent EU maintenance, development and distribution ecosystem for the specific packages that can operate autonomously and independent of upstream.

fleischhauf 9mo ago
something like a European GitHub you mean? (didn't read the article)
- lexicality 9mo ago
  It's less than two hundred words long, I promise you it's not going to take very long to read
- PeterStuer 9mo ago
  No, I mean an entire EU software ecosystem that can keep the lights on even under extreme sanctions from US (or Russia, or China, but we are in practice mostly dependent on US). You can have your local GitHub mirror, but if projects are forced to stop exporting to and collaborating with EU developers, who in the EU will maintain and further develop the now isolated EU codebases?

phkamp 9mo ago

Here is what I submitted: I am a well known FOSS developer. At one point code I had written protected half the passwords on the entire Internet, and today around a quarter of all HTTP(S) traffic on the internet goes through software I have written ("Varnish"). That, and the fata morgana of retirement shimmering on my horizon, makes it my considered opinion that FOSS is the gift EU does not deserve, and runs a great risk of destroying on first contact. However, closed source as we know it, is not compatible with an open, free and fair society, so I am more than aboard with the EU's long overdue recognition of FOSS as the way forward and out of the grubby, greedy claws of "Big Tech" and their endless enshitification of our lives. The kind of FOSS software relevant to this discussion is usually rock steady and dependable in ways much commercial closed software, precisely because of the secrecy, can never be or become. But the human communities which produces the FOSS software are fragile, fractious, and as a general rule, composed of people who may be great programmers, but who have absolutely no experience, and no interest, in fostering and stewarding stable human communities. This is literally why there are who knows how many, different "distributions" of the Linux operating system, "window managers", "web-site frameworks" and programming languages. Therefore the absolutely most important thing for EU to understand about FOSS, is that it probably is as close to the "ideal market", in the sense of economic theories, as anything will ever come: It literally costs nothing to become a competitor. But that also means that if the EU member countries were to pick, no matter how fair and competently, a set of FOSS software to standardize on, and pour money into the people behind it, to provide the necessary resources to support and sustain the need for IT systems, for all the administrations in the EU countries, that software would instantly stop being FOSS - no matter what words the license might contain, because it would no longer be part of the market. In other words: EU cannot "switch to FOSS", it would no longer be FOSS if EU did. At the most fundamental level, the EU has three options: 1. Pick and bless a set of winners, consisting of: a) Operating system, portable to any reasonable computer architecture. b) Text-processing, suitable for tasks up to a book. c) Spreadsheet d) Email client. e) Web Browser f) Accounting software, suitable for small organizations. and fund organizations to maintain, develop and support the software for the future as open source, turning that software into infrastructure like water, power and electricity, free for all, individuals, startups and established companies alike, to use and benefit from. 2. Continuously develop/pick, bless and meticulously enforce open standards of interoperability, and then "let the competition loose". 3. Both. By providing a free baseline and de-facto reference implementations for the open standards, "the market" will be free to innovate, improve and compete, but cannot (re)create walled gardens. To everybody, me included, option two seems the ideologically "pure" choice, because we have all been brought to believe that "governments should not pick winners". But governments have always picked winners. Today all of EU has 230VAC electrical grids, because EU picked that as a winner, thereby leveling the market to everybody's benefit. Therefore I will argue, that the wise choice for EU is option three. First, it will be incredibly cheap, as in just tens of millions of Euro per year, to provide all EU citizens with a free and trustworthy software platform to run on their computers. Second, it can be done incredibly fast: From EU makes the decision, the first version can be release in a matter of months, if not weeks. Third, it will guarantee interoperability of data. Sincerely, Poul-Henning Kamp

jamesblonde 9mo ago

Subsidiarity has been a key building block of the EU and has failed the EU for unexpected reasons. Subsidiarity was pursued for accountability and to make the EU less centralized - decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level possible, with central authorities only stepping in when a task cannot be effectively handled locally. However, it means that here in Sweden govt bodies are all individually moving to Azure, because each one makes that local decision in their best interest. The same thing has happened all over the EU - and very few govt bodies would ever take the risk of investing in using EU cloud or data platforms. We need public procurement to help kickstart life into the Eurostack.

jillesvangurp 9mo ago

My view is that there is commodity software and niche/specialized software. You find commercial solutions for both. But OSS is great for commodity software. Everything becomes a commodity eventually. There's a lot of niche software that then goes mainstream, gets imitated by others, and becomes important to a wide range of sectors. A lot of that software usually ends up with very decent OSS alternatives. If it's worth having in OSS software form, usually somebody ends up working on it. A lot of OSS projects are already leaning heavily on contributions from individuals and companies inside the EU. That's a good thing for the EU and something to stimulate and build on. What the EU should do is keep an eye out for commodity software where it relies on non eu commercial software. Identify key areas where that is risky, e.g. communication software, IOT, or finance. And then stimulate members to switch to OSS alternatives if they exist and invest in the creation/support of such alternatives if they are important. OSS software doesn't just create itself, it needs backing from companies which could use the support in the form of grants. That could include support for non EU OSS projects. There's nothing wrong with OSS from abroad. As long as this software is properly governed and vital to the EU, the EU should ensure those projects are healthy and future proofed. It should ensure local software companies get the support they need to do the right things here. This should ensure projects that are important don't run out of funding. And the EU can stimulate OSS development into strategic new areas with incentives. And make sure that EU companies that back this are successful internationally. This turns the tables on other countries maybe depending more on EU sourced software. The EU doesn't have to follow; it can lead.

user2722 9mo ago

I think I'll use this opportunity to piggyback my opinion about [1] on my response to this call for evidence. [1] https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/287 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...

teekert 9mo ago

I see some people donating money to open source. I'm currently discussing with my bookkeeper but she says it's all personal, so I pay income tax (in the Netherlands) and then I can donate. Is this really true? Why can't I just give some money to the devs that develop the software I use in my business, as a business? It makes it twice as expensive.

kwanbix 9mo ago

As a South American, it’s striking to see how the current U.S. administration has forced other countries to confront the risks of not having their own digital infrastructure. And this isn’t just about software or the cloud. What happens if tomorrow the U.S. forbids Apple from selling iPhones outside its borders? Or starts requiring built-in backdoors or kill switchs? Scenarios like these raise a deeper question: could this push the most powerful players, the US, EU, China, and India to eventually rebuild entire technology stacks from scratch in the name of self preservation? Could this mean the end of a globalized world?

PartiallyTyped 9mo ago
China is on the path to doing just that, and I expect the heads of the government (or at least the people behind the scenes) in both EU and India consider this. The US has, unfortunately, proven to be a very unreliable partner.
- kwanbix 9mo ago
  The problem isn’t only the U.S. China is also unreliable, and Russia as well. Just look at what happened to the EU with its dependence on Russian gas: once the war in Ukraine started, that dependency immediately turned into a major vulnerability.
  - PartiallyTyped 9mo ago
    I don't disagree. From my point of view, we (europeans) should focus on our collective well-being and sovereignty. Unfortunately it feels that at times, we find more to split with each other than the rest of the world.
davisr 9mo ago
CALEA has given the FBI backdoor access to all telecom traffic for the past 30 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
9mo ago

Peteragain 9mo ago

Did people here see the Cory Doctorow thing a few days back about DMCA and "Article 6 of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive"? https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/#the-new-coalition https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/#the-new-coalition Basically without open source, the rest of the world will have to keep paying a tithe to American companies, and hence tax in the USA.

mimd 9mo ago

Opensource is a bit more complex than being a "public good". They're focusing on the low cost as a jump starting point, which make me doubt their sincerity/understanding about managing that relationship healthily.

rewqaz555 9mo ago

I feel bad saying this as open source software developer, but what EU needs is in-house produced x86 compatible cpu to run the software they want as long as they want.

mmooss 9mo ago

What open source leaders can help them? For example, does Linus Torvalds still feel connected to Europe?

troyvit 9mo ago

I read the call for evidence. I have a silly question: Where does one go to supply that evidence?

troyvit 9mo ago
I found it! https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems/addFeedback_en?p_id=21875 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa... You need an EU account though. I got one and I'm an American so it shouldn't be too tough.

shevy-java 9mo ago

Has the EU commission still not understood that becoming a paid-by Washington lobby group, does not work for Europeans? So, why are they so slow in pushing into action here? Rather than money going into US corporations, have EU citizens work on specific open source projects, many of them, with clear goals. Simple example: libreoffice - improve interfacing with it. ALL governments, universities etc... would benefit from this. Not only in the EU but elsewhere too. I don't understand this insane slowness here, unless lobbyists run Brussels already.

elric 9mo ago

Evidence of what? Of the existence of open source? Of "open source" what? Software? Hardware? Its usage? The the communities behind various open source projects?

drnick1 9mo ago

Maybe they should start by outlawing Google Play Integrity then. This will immediately make FOSS Android phones more useful in Europe.

hsuduebc2 9mo ago

I consider much bigger problem dependence on foreign ecosystems and data storages. This is of course useful but I would consider much more efficient some kind of incentives to build domestic alternative to ms office cloud solution which basically run all corps.

qwery 9mo ago

This sounds more negative than I want it to, but it seems like this is missing the forest for the trees. There's absolutely a real problem here and I am fully supportive of projects seeking to address this. Governments around the world throw public money at private enterprise to solve all of their IT problems. This sounds good, I guess, to the Americans in the room. Until recently the US actually had a great number of "open source" projects -- NASA, NOAA, come to mind (the weather satellites are still going). Open projects, owned by the people -- this is the obviously correct way to do things. You can engage the business sector when it makes sense to do so, but a country shouldn't be run by -- be dependent on -- a Microsoft, or a PricewaterhouseCoopers. Then they delete the production database and write the people a post mortem about how they'll improve for next time. Then they profit from war crimes that your government even quietly admits are a bad thing occasionally. Then they <if you aren't aware of the UK post office scandal, you should be>. "Open source" isn't a solution. Free software would be a better look. But the entire world is completely dependent on IT systems and goverments don't employ enough software developers. Not "developers" to "refresh" the UI again, not Autodesk certified Call of Duty Black Ops 9 Micopilot Copilot 666 developers -- normal boring software developers -- public servants. Make it dull. It's your people you're fucking with. Flashy app bad, boring UI good -- it's a tax return. The thing that should be happening is serious public sector software development. By the people, for the people. Keep it in-house. I shouldn't have to say to keep it open. It belongs to the people.

mjashanks 9mo ago

I feel like now, more than ever, the time is right for the EU's move to open-source to succeed. Linux Desktop is now simply better than Windows, by far. Open office is good. There are many high-quality, commercially supported open-source products available now, developed by full-time, highly talented engineers. There's every chance that this will work & breaking up oligopolies is great for everyone, not just Europe. I wrote about this recently if you're interested: https://budibase.com/blog/updates/eu-digital-sovereignty-and-oss/ https://budibase.com/blog/updates/eu-digital-sovereignty-and...