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.
Maybe we should not twist ourselves to logical pretzels to redefine terms like that.
Belgium isn't big enough to realistically have its own linux, but France and Germany are.
The hypothetical specifically precludes that.
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.
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?
I don’t care if someone “doesn’t know” about the nuance when they breathlessly throw back with One Cereal For Everyone Decided By The State. Come on.
> 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?
I can understand that you think my reply is pedantic noise. That’s simply because we have different goals and things that we intend to communicate. I’m content with setting the record straight. You apparently want to calmly explain the difference between apparent Stalinism and Bernie Sanders-style Socialism.
I think I am able to make out what people are talking about. But you can’t seem to, right in this context, imagine that we all have different goals ourselves about what we wish to get out of commenting here.
Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
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!
https://lwn.net/Articles/1053131/
(yes it seems that comments are subarticles)
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.
For example: https://map.debian.net/
This is an EU initiative, Ubuntu probably isn't included.
If we talk about OS being independent from US, the culprit is where does control(both in terms of technology and legislation) comes from. Main contributors are US companies(technological control) while Linus is obligated to comply to US laws and decisions as US citizen.
Your suggestion that the US government would lean on the citizenship of Torvalds in order to exert control over the kernel should be laughable but I concede that anything is possible these days.
[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regul...
Also you're forgetting all the "US" companies with headquarters in Luxembourg or Ireland.
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 I am skeptical, so I wouldn't be surprised in a few years we will have a EU approved OS that is controlled by bureaucracts.
Hence my comparison to North Korea's Linux distro
But despite that, they exist today, successfully so, and continue being funded by the very people you claim they should stay away from.
I'm not sure if you looked into how this whole "funding FOSS" thing works like, but governments are not opening a fund, letting any FOSS developer expense stuff to it and calling it a day. Usually they contract a company to work on things, that then end up FOSS.
Even if the end result is FOSS or not, they have the same people they can blame if they want to, the people they paid for certain results. The license of the finished thing doesn't change who's responsible for doing the job they've been paid to do.
I think until you actually understanding how the funding works, it would be fair to avoid doing flippant comments who basically only try to add some fuel to some fire, with some completely out of place comparison to a NK Linux distribution.
Sure, the EU contracts developers to build features they want, but when those requirements start coming from regulatory mandates rather than user needs, you're not just adding features to Ubuntu anymore.
You're forking it into something fundamentally different.
"EUbuntu"? :)
Look at how the EU handles tech regulations:
- GDPR a good thing on paper; with some terrible side effects - cookie banners, data bureacracy, walled gardens between US-EU websites.
- AI legislation; lets wait and see
- Digital sovereignty; fundamentally trying to gain access control for EU citizens data from Google and Apple.
Anyways, let's see what happens. Maybe I'm being too cynical and they'll just become savvy end-users of existing distros. But given the pattern, I'm not holding my breath.
I was gonna reply to your comment in good faith, but I realize right here that you don't actually understand what you're talking about. Cookie banners have nothing to do with GDPR, at all, and thinking they're somehow connected, grossly misunderstands regulation in the EU. How am I supposed to take anything else you say about these topics with a straight face?
So with that said, I hope you have a continued nice day :)
> 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.
> The EU faces a significant problem of dependence on non-EU countries in the digital sphere. This reduces users' choice, hampers EU companies' competitiveness and can raise supply chain security issues as it makes it difficult to control our digital infrastructure (both physical and software components), potentially creating vulnerabilities including in critical sectors.
If you were trying to more widely insinuate that this third party dosing out small-to-modest incentives to individuals to do a bit of hacking on Fediverse stuff was the only thing the EU was doing to support Open Source or represented some sort of ceiling on the amounts EU-funded projects working on FOSS could pay their developers, it would be even more wrong.
Plenty of valid criticisms of the EU's cyber non-dependence strategy or the detail of grant and equity funding programmes for research and building stuff and how they weight FOSS (that's part of the reason for the consultation!) but you need to have the slightest idea what exists to get into those...
The only bigger denominator in terms of funds is Horizon which is completely political, and not worth mentioning at all, if that's what you wanted to suggest. It also operates under minuscule scale in terms of grants (up to 2.5M over 2 years) or funding (1-30M). No possibility for seed rounds which implies you already must be in the business and already have an almost viable product ready to deploy to the market tomorrow (EU bureaucracy calls it TRL6-8). This is all ridiculous and shows how detached from reality people making decisions there are. They even hire "experts" to weigh your application for which you know ... ta-da ... have to hire yet another "expert" to write that application for you. 100s of pages to prove your idea worthy. Once a year. World innovation runs at much much higher pace.
So, sure the R&D environment in EU is built on a very fertile ground and Brussels is doing their best to "call for an evidence" because open-source software is going to save the economy??? Right.
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.
Once again? When did they do that? They have been funding various open source projects (like VLC, Libre Office) for quite a while:
Yes, with all their configs, packages and certifications that were needed. Not really a problem.
> It failed horrendously
Because Microsoft came in, promised to relocate their HQ to Munich, and surprise, it was decided to come back to Windows. This was after reports found that although it took longer than expected, adoption was widespread (only a small minority of desktops remained on Windows for the few Windows specific apps they had), things were working well, user happyness was good, stability was good, and tons of taxpayer money had been saved.
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.
I think at this point we're beyond that, we already have these programs and they seem to be expanding. EU-STF is one such example, then there are other organizations supported by the EU in various ways, that also helps fund OSS, like NLnet Foundation.
Yes, they currently fund people working full-time on contributing to FOSOS. If that's no "beyond decency", I don't know what is. Are you expecting these people to end up flush with cash, or what's the issue?
> how do you attract experts in the field with 50k EUR grants?
Because most of us experts actually care about what we work with, not how much we get paid. Once you reach a certain level of income so you're financially safe, increasing that generally doesn't increase your happiness that much, so most of us focus on being fulfilled in other ways, mainly about caring about the work we do.
As someone who used to work full-time in FOSS, it is a great feeling to contribute to something not just because it pays, but because it actually improves something in real life. I can't speak for everyone, but this is still mostly why I do FOSS.
I think fundamentally there seems to be a difference between "European FOSS" and "American FOSS" where the latter focuses more on basically CV-driven FOSS projects, with the hope of the FOSS leading to you somehow getting paid more in some for-profit company. While European FOSS seems to mainly be concerned about making things sustainable, grow a healthy community, and remaining FOSS long-term.
No, you cannot build a serious product to compete with globally established products only by using the 50k EUR grant since serious products of larger scale (impact) necessitates more than a single expert.
How do you build an alternative cloud or alternative database or alternative AI model with a 50k grant? Or how do you attract 10, 15 maybe 20 people to work on it? How much money do you consider would be enough for these people to be "financially safe".
> Because most of us experts actually care about what we work with, not how much we get paid.
Most? I believe not. Most experts in the field are working for a beyond average salary and not for the FOSS projects. You need a leverage to attract those people to leave their jobs to contribute to something bigger (in terms of society) and yet this leverage is, as you say, "experts care about what we work with, not how much we get paid". This is laughable and at the same time worrying because you're genuinely convinced that this is an attitude everyone should follow. Such an ignorant view, sorry.
Who said you have to? Software is not a "winner takes all", you can solve a niche problem, get paid OK for it, and have a better standard of living than the average person in your country. This is widespread in Europe already, not sure why it's so foreign to so many.
I'm sorry, but that you and your peers seem to select professions and work positions solely based on monetary profits is what it is, but don't try to give the impression it's like that all over the world, because it isn't. It's probably more common than you think, but your environment might lead you to believe it isn't. For that, I feel pity for you.
> The EU faces a significant problem of dependence on non-EU countries in the digital sphere. This reduces users' choice, hampers EU companies' competitiveness and can raise supply chain security issues as it makes it difficult to control our digital infrastructure (both physical and software components), potentially creating vulnerabilities including in critical sectors.
> you and your peers seem to select professions and work positions solely based on monetary profits is what it is
No, I have never done that and I couldn't have done it because of a very simple reason - there was no market at the time I was starting with my profession and what I am still doing today is a direct consequence of what I found appealing most at that time and during my Uni days - bleeding edge computer science and computer engineering coupled with the bleeding edge hardware.
> but don't try to give the impression it's like that all over the world, because it isn't. It's probably more common than you think, but your environment might lead you to believe it isn't. For that, I feel pity for you.
You live in a fantasy world. And the only issue I have with that is that you spread your claims as something that is (EU) universally true, which is not. Please leave your utopistic comments elsewhere and not on this topic where it's relevant to stay objective.
There is no objectiveness in cultural assessment. They didn't express their opinion as something that is universally true, or at least I wasn't able to read it that way.
Why would anyone imagine that, when no one has suggested that?? How about coming up with arguments against something, if you're against it, rather arguing against some imaginary point no one made.
"imagine" is just ironical note for what is happenning in reality(you are advocating for (subjectively) improper financing model which expects to provide over-the-market quality with under-the-market cost)
Whether the EU will ever produce the necessary public investment to achieve this remains an open question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I keep hearing the "too many regulations" argument, and I totally disagree. Too few regulations (or rather no enforcement of them) resulted in the TooBigTech monopolies we have today. Of course, they got so successful because of the lack of regulations, but now it's simply impossible to compete with them. Removing regulations (assuming that there are regulations that impact them today, which I doubt) would help them, not the competition.
And we have precedents:
* Whenever the EU tries to do some antitrust, it impacts TooBigTech (which is almost exclusively US), and as a result the US bullies the EU to stop it. If regulations were weakening the EU, why would the US government fight them?
* Let's continue with the US as the example of fewer bureaucracy in this case (the complaint is that the EU cannot compete with the US because of the EU's bureaucracy): look at examples where a non-US company takes over a market (or threatens to take it over). Huawei smartphones (not the infrastructure like antennas, this is different), TikTok, DJI. What do US companies do to win against them? They lobby like crazy to add regulations that will stop the competition.
The US hasn't managed to compete with TikTok: they made it illegal instead.
When Huawei was becoming very big in smartphones in the US, they got banned.
The US hasn't managed to compete with DJI, and the biggest US drone companies are spending a ton of resources trying to get DJI banned. DJI is so superior that even banning them is tricky: it has to be done slowly because banning them right away would disrupt entire industries for lack of viable alternatives. That's how far US drones are from DJI drones.
"Too many regulations" is wrong. The successful players get protection from their government (be it the US or China), and it's high time the EU protected its own players, too. With regulations, just like the US and China does (when they don't abuse their dominant position to bully the EU).
I especially enjoyed reading the logical fallacy of drone companies that are so small/non-existent that DJI cannot be banned quickly, but those same companies mysteriously have enough money to bribe politicians for a ban (and the much bigger DJI can’t outbid them).
Also: You wrote in a previous comment that nobody can compete with Apple due to lack of antitrust regulation:
> > Is there anything that stops today anyone from starting a new Google or a new Microsoft or a new Apple in Europe?
> The same thing that stops anyone from starting a new Google or Microsoft or Apple in the US, probably.
But now you are saying that Huawei was about to unseat them and therefore needed to be banned. So… which is it?
There has been a ton of money thrown at US drone companies in the last 10 years. A TON. From the government and from VCs. It's not that those companies are so small or non-existent: it's just that consumers do not buy their products. Which is why most drone companies have conveniently pivoted to the military now. And with the military funding, they have money.
And they have been lobbying A LOT to ban DJI, and they are winning that fight. But that does not mean that the consumers want to buy their US drones. DJI drones are still vastly cheaper and better, and professional users (including US government entities) rely on DJI. So much that it is unreasonable to just ban all existing DJI hardware. It has to come progressively so that those consumers can get used to paying a lot more to get worse drones.
There is no question here: without regulations, NOBODY can REMOTELY compete against DJI, period. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the drone industry.
> But now you are saying that Huawei was about to unseat them and therefore needed to be banned. So… which is it?
Huawei and TikTok and DJI are Chinese companies. US people never forget to mention that they don't exactly play by the same rules (e.g. they can grow in their protected market until they reach a size where they can try in the rest of the world). US companies cannot do that (try to build a US smartphone manufacturer and compete with Apple in the US, just for fun).
But in those very rare situations where US companies get competition (and that will happen more and more from China), and those US companies suddenly find themselves in the weaker position, the VERY FIRST thing they want is more regulations.
"When I win, that's because I am the best. When I lose, that's because the rules are against me". You think Europe sucks because their tech companies lose against the US? Have fun comparing the US to China then :-).
I have been in companies getting money from government programs. It's not fraud from the government side, at least not for what I've seen.
The problem is that companies see government programs as a way to make easy money. If the government pays a company for X, that's because that company has expertise in X. So it's easy for the company to bullshit the government employees and sell them crap.
Companies abuse the government funding as much as they possible and legally can, and then we blame the government. And on top of that we would want fewer regulations? If you want to be able to punish abuse from companies, you need regulations, and you need to apply them.
So, in well-known conditions of ineffective spending without competition government chose to waste money bypassing market? How that's not government's fault?
What I am saying is that generally, private companies abuse the government money when they can. Just like private companies enshittify their products to make more money. It's all about making money.
Why are governments getting bad software from companies? For the same reason users are getting bad software as well. The software industry produces money, not good software.
They have government money that they want to spend wisely. And experts from private companies convince them that they can solve their problems.
If the government employee was the expert, they would not have to contact the private companies in the first place. The private companies know that, and they abuse their dominant position by convincing (sometimes downright lying) to the government employees.
It is a very difficult position to be in. It's not about buying a car and being able to just test it. Many times the government funding goes for some kind of R&D. Which makes it easy for the experts to bullshit them and never produce anything useful.
Those who say that it's 100% the government fault should maybe try to go work there. They could truly help their country, if they could actually do better. But chances are that they can't.
"We have tried hard, but failed" is still failure despite any good will. Good will with courage and having skills with competence are very different things and often govt employees have neither because otherwise they will be more successful using this skillset in private companies.
Two things:
* The government is often in the situation where they want to fund some effort, like R&D. Say China is way ahead of the US in drone technology, and the US wants to catch up because that's a risk (we see how drones are used in the military now). So someone will have money to spend on US companies who will do everything they can to get as much money as possible. How can the government employee know which company is abusing? First they are all abusing, and second they are all failing already (otherwise the government wouldn't be in this situation where they need to fund them). This is a very hard problem.
* When it is about buying e.g. an IT solution for the company, I have seen private companies fail just as much as governments. McKinsey and their friends do the same bullshit to everybody, be it government or private companies. Don't think that private companies don't waste money. It's just that when it is the government, it is transparent and we like to complain about the government.
Extremely expensive software projects in government have a common thread in every case I have first-hand experience with. The government has no consistent vision of what they want or who is the final arbiter of these decisions, and no person in the government is accountable for the outcomes. Both the requirements and responsibility are spread across so many people that for all practical purposes there are no clear requirements and no accountability.
The government software programs that run well in my experience have the organizational equivalent of a BDFL. A BDFL doesn't really exist in government; even when someone acts in that role they are often reassigned to other projects at random.
> There is no artificial monopoly in FLOSS
I don't care about that as a consumer. I want software / a computer which works and easy customer support if I need it. People are very willing to pay for that, but there is no such FLOSS offering as far as I know. Because FLOSS developers hate consumers and worship corporate enterprises.
Until this happens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243075. Or, worse, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 or this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556. Megacorps don't care about your requests for support.
> People are very willing to pay for that, but there is no such FLOSS offering as far as I know
https://www.debian.org/consultants/
https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/user/hardware/certified-h...
and much more. Have you tried using search?
FLOSS or non-FLOSS, there is no real European consumer offering for an operating system. That should be the starting point for people who want a thriving European IT industry.
It could very well be based on Linux or whatever. But consumers need support. They need a phone numbers they can call and an e-mail addresses they can write to.
Focusing on consumers instead of corporate or academia is how Apple became so successful.
doesn't matter. You can't close it or prohibit its usage or forking.
Where did I say I was European?
> implying EU companies are not anti-competitive and EU government is not extremely protectionist
Anti-competitive behaviours from TooBigTech are well documented, and they are regularly fined for that. I'm sure it happens from EU companies, but it has less impact given that the software industry is almost entirely dominated by US companies.
Now I can't remember the last time the EU threatened the US to prevent them from regulating EU companies?
Also are you aware that pretty much all governments in the EU rely on the US monopolies? I wouldn't call that "extremely protectionnist". As compared to e.g. the US banning Huawei or TikTok or DJI.
EU tactics on protectionism is creating legislative framework to apply tariffs to competing imports(i.e. import taxes and quotas(TARIC, etc), ecology-related fees, subsidies for local industries, restricting imports of goods for private citizens by postal limits and others)
The fact that the US wins because they don't play by the same rules does not mean that it is fair.
And the fact that the US bans Chinese tech when they do to the US what the US does to the rest of the world shows that the US doesn't find it fair either. It's just easier to accept an unfair situation when we benefit from it.
Is there anything that stops today anyone from starting a new Google or a new Microsoft or a new Apple in Europe? Concretely no. What's stopping this is that most governments in Europe are taxing companies to death to fund social services that end up in deficit anyway.
It's getting tiring of hearing of the big bad Microsoft that stops poor Europe from competing properly.
The EU tech salaries are ridiculously low and the tax burden is unreasonably high. Add on top of that an aversion to risk from the banks and VC funds in Europe and this is what you get.
The same thing that stops anyone from starting a new Google or Microsoft or Apple in the US, probably.
And that's apparently not regulations.
> It's getting tiring of hearing of the big bad Microsoft that stops poor Europe from competing properly.
Who says that? I don't. What I say is that the big bad monopolies stop others from competing properly.
But the big bad monopolies being US companies, they are protected by the US government who doesn't really care about having US competition in the US, but cares about domining over the rest of the world.
> The EU tech salaries are ridiculously low and the tax burden is unreasonably high. Add on top of that an aversion to risk from the banks and VC funds in Europe and this is what you get.
Again, a handful of companies completely dominate the software industry in the US, too. Is that because of ridiculously low salaries and unreasonably high tax burden in the US? I don't get the reasoning.
eu has a shit software industry and it has only itself to blame for the insane amount of bureaucracy, cutthroat taxes, labor laws that promote stagnation, and the culture of extreme risk aversion.
It is a good place to live until the borrowed time elapses.
Your polite wishful responses are frustrating to read to anyone who's had to go through this hell.
Why? Because it makes sense. Why stay in Berlin or Paris where you can make 50K to 70K euros a year at most and pay close to 40% or 50% in taxes when you can make double or triple that in the US or better yet, start your own company there and then expand in Europe after building it knowing that if you eventually sell it, you get to keep a lot of the sale price.
Talented people don't work for nothing. Motivated and ambitious people don't work for nothing.
If Europe wants to see it's own tech giants emerge, then it's needs to compensate founders and employees well. That's as simple as it is.
Unfortunately it's just not the case at the moment and until that changes, the most ambitious Europeans will continue leaving and building companies on the other side of the Atlantic.
Have you ever talked to Europeans in your life?
Fwiw, I have doubts that currently Europe can compete with the US at the startup level, let alone at the bigco one.
I am not trying to drag Europe down - it worries me that sophisticated complacency, overconfidence based on the achievements of previous generations, and addiction to comfort, will start eroding the very aspects that make it a great place to live at.
EU (software) industry is a dream for mediocre skilled people. Secure a job once, can't get fired, do bare minimum and never be proactive.
It is a hell for people who work hard and fast. The whole culture is geared towards dragging down anyone who is proactive and makes others look bad by being too good.
The reason why there is no other Google in the US currently is because for the average person Google works fine so if you go to a VC fund and ask for USD 100M to build the next Google, you are going to have to sell them on your vision and explain how you are going to do things better and maybe just maybe someone will be crazy enough to invest.
As of this moment that has not happened but it certainly could.
However for Europe it is not the same calculations. Everyone keeps repeating that Europe is too dependent on US tech but what do we do about it? Not much.
It should be a top priority to start a competing search engine that is better than Google in Europe and it should be so good that people start using it without being forced to do so by bureaucrats in Brussels.
Instead, the risk aversion is such that no VC in Europe will ever consider that for one, it is doable and that two, it warrants such a massive investment (which it does). So the conclusion remains the same. There will be no European Google and there will be no European Apple.
> Who says that? I don't. What I say is that the big bad monopolies stop others from competing properly.
I am only repeating your words. You say big bad monopolies stop other from competing properly. I am not seeing the evidence for your claim. Anyone can start a competing OS in Europe. Is Microsoft somehow stopping everyone from doing so?
If not, why is there no European Windows or European MacOS? Is it because of these monopolies?
You put the blame of the big bad monopolies and I say that the reason these monopolies exist in the first place is because we haven't even tried to compete and therefore de facto we are giving the entire market to the US tech.
> whenever the EU tries to apply antitrust laws, they get bullied by the US.
The laws are not going to fix this issue when you have no other competing products to replace the US tech products. Is there a better search product out there than Google (despite all its flaws) for the average person? A better Windows?
Secondly, the fact that the US can "bully" Europe is simply a second order effect of the problem we are facing now. Since there are no good competitors in the critical tech sectors of Europe then the US knows there is nothing the EU can do.
That is why the "bullying" as you put it work here and it doesn't work in China which has developed it's own ecosystem of apps and tech companies and it doesn't have to bow to the US on that front.
> Again, a handful of companies completely dominate the software industry in the US, too. Is that because of ridiculously low salaries and unreasonably high tax burden in the US? I don't get the reasoning.
The average salary of tech worker in the US is higher than in Europe. Denying this fact is simply putting more blinders on.
If you want to make good products you need talent. If you want innovation you need talent and you need to have people who are motivated to start something new and usually for most people motivation takes the form of money.
Then to get talent you need to pay them properly and/or they need to understand that they will reap the rewards of their labor somehow.
That is why you see so many founders going to the US to found their company there instead of Europe. That is why some of the founders who start in Europe end up moving to the US when they get big enough because they know that there they can get the best talent and they stand to make some potentially life changing money if their company does well.
Then these founders exit their companies and what do they do next? They invest in other companies, the create their own VC fund, they foster the next unicorns and then these unicorns come knocking on Europe's doors with their product and once gain Europe has no response or a very weak response because there are no competitors or very small ones that are merely a blip on the US's radar. Then the cycle repeats again and again.
At the end of the day, if you take into account the potential risks, the legal hurdles, the lack access to capital, the potential monetary gains and the access to talent, then the conclusion is simple: The US wins every time.
Does that mean that everyone who creates a company in Europe eventually leaves or that no company get started at all? Certainly not. But since the incentives are not there, they are just less companies getting started, less unicorns being built, less access to capital, less access to talent and if you compound that year after year you end up in the situation we are in now.
And if you think that this is somehow misrepresenting the current state of Europe, it is not. Mario Draghi himself has tried to explain these things to the EU governments and made many recommendations in order to try to close the gap. 1 year later and basically nothing or almost nothing in his report has been implemented.
The EU likes to cry foul every-time a US tech giant comes in and steamrolls the competition in Europe and it thinks that just one more law, one more regulation will fix the problem.
If the EU/Europe was instead fixing the real problem which is the lack of good competitors in Europe, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place because the monopolies you mention would not exists here.
This is a real problem with most Europeans honestly. Not being able to admit when things are not working. And then finally we wake up 5 years too late and the writing is on the wall.
Europe is not one country, not even the EU is perfectly united. It's a dozen different countries, each with their own political and technical landscape, and Open Source is seen as the logical solution to unite them without raising a new (local) software-dictator.
> it needs its own healthy and competitive software industry.
It has a good software industry, and it could of course be always better, but USA is still bigger and more dominating. Ther eis also a difference between software and service. Popular Cloud-services for common work is rare in Europe, building them is and making them popular, especially on a european level, is important.
> 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.
It's all about control. Open Source matters, becausse it gives more control, more insight, less chance some other country is spying on your and someday switching off something important.
If you're afraid that one country might create a better software product/company and win the market and this would become 'unfair,' you've already lost the plot.
Instead of harnessing the best talent the EU has to offer, you're making sure they never get off the ground in the name of 'fairness.' Tall poppy syndrome in the extreme.
I'm sorry but the free market-denial that's become endemic among European central planners is getting wildly irrational at this point. Every year we creep closer to USSR-level government spending as % of GDP, crowding out private sector activity.
Do you understand that the entire tax base of the EU is dependent on private sector businesses competing with each other to offer better products and services? Unfairness and exceptionalism and its winners are what funds our entire way of life.
We can redistribute some of the earnings from the winners to the losers after the fact (as we already do at 50% on average). But we absolutely need to have the market competition to drive value in the first place for there to be anything to redistribute!
> If you're afraid that one country might create a better software product/company and win the market and this would become 'unfair,' you've already lost the plot.
That's not how this market works. With government, many projects do not make the deal because they have the better offer or superiour product, but because the company is better at playing the administration, which usually comes down to "investing more money". Open Source and open standards can remove some of the leverages they use, enabling smaller companies to play on a bigger field, and thus improving the market overall.
And with the actual political situation in Europe, there is also the beneficial sideeffect that more players in the market, and less dependecy from single point of failures, will allow everyone to raise their survival-rate in case of hostile actions.
- government decision making is corrupt/inefficient (they would not pick the best product, only the company that bribed them the most)
AND
- government directly funding software development would not suffer from the same issues with government being corrupt/inefficient?
That's an strangly simple view. You think playing politics can only mean bribing them?
> government directly funding software development would not suffer from the same issues with government being corrupt/inefficient?
The public sector is not a single unified hivemind. There are multiple different levels of organisation which are each working togeher and fighting each other all at the same time. But a common problem for them all is, the less rules for them exist, the more likely they will make their own descisions.
If government is competent enough to build its own software solutions (and these creations would be valuable enough that open sourcing them would create opportunities for startups in the private sector as you've claimed!)...then they are also competent enough to buy the correct software product from a European private company.
If they cannot be trusted to buy the right software for themselves without the process being corrupted, they sure as hell can't be trusted to BUILD that software from the ground up (a much harder task!).
The other problem is the ability for American companies and funds to just buy European companies.
If Europe wants to stop this is needs to be very aware of the licensing agreements, and to pass laws to limit foreign investment - like China, India etc do.
- Every country develops its own solution, which is good for employee demand, but can be inefficient
- Every country standardizes on a proprietary solution. The problem will be that said solution will most likely come from one of the major EU countries (say Germany) and others will feel left out and forced to use that solution. Said solution will be Germany-first, so local demands will have to go a slow and expensive contracting process. Said company will sell access to APIs, meaning integrating and building innovation on top will be tied to that commercial entity
- Every country uses the same standard software that's open source. There's no licensing fees, everyone can modify the code to accomodate local needs. Development costs are low. Proprietary local solution can be built on top without having to pay anyone.
It's clear to me, that when the customer is the public, and open-source solution should be preferred.
Anyway, open source is fine there. But you're not getting things like a Desktop or Web office suite (OpenOffice is an historical accident), an enterprise device management, endpoint security, ... this way.
EU has plenty of these orgs it can generously fund, and scoping funding like this would create more. Some existing examples (many of which accept gov't funds but need a lot more to rival big tech):
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.
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.
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)
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.
Anyone who agrees with this should sign this petition made by Free Software Foundation Europe: https://publiccode.eu
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?
Having source code for the tax system itself is interesting, but I think the market for “run software for processing incoming taxes for polish citizens” is exactly one.
Unless they expect pull requests, which could be fun, but as OSS maintainers know, it’s a ton of work and boy would there be a ton of spam on something like this.
It would be nice to have both (open source and open protocol), but I kind of agree that if we should push for one, an open (decently explained) standard will probably be easier, simpler and with longer term impact, not to mention the interoperability benefits between countries.
The government - and taxpayers - should care that having closed-source software means they are tied to the company that wrote it forever, so changes and bugfixes will be much more expensive.
Also open source government code means other governments can fork it, overall lowering implementation costs, while still keeping code sovereignty.
Well, not all, for example mObywatel was recently open-sourced (in a ridiculous way, but still).
I think you raise some important points. In my opinion, a lot of code funded by public money should be open-sourced, but it's not as clear-cut as some people believe. I'll use this comment to point out some of fallacies that people responding to you make:
>Also open source government code means other governments can fork it, overall lowering implementation costs, while still keeping code sovereignty.
This is completely unrelated. French government won't deploy a Polish public health management website just because they found it on Github. For projects of such magnitude you need deep mutual cooperation between both governments, and a lot of changes. Making the code open-source is the least important part, the code can be just shared privately.
In fact, there are many such European code, data and information sharing initiatives. There are meetings and conferences where countries can discuss this on a technical level. The code is shared, just not via public channels.
>The government - and taxpayers - should care that having closed-source software means they are tied to the company that wrote it forever, so changes and bugfixes will be much more expensive.
If a private company owns code used by government for critical purposes and can take the government hostage it's outrageous and taxpayers should riot. This probably happens[1], but most code is either written by government itself, or at least government owns the code and can switch contractors if necessary.
In particular, AFAIR the government code we're discussing right now was written by COI (~central informatics department), which is a public institution.
[1] For example, governments use Azure and GCP, even though - to me - it's clearly shortsighted. Fortunately there was a wake-up call recently, and it changes slowly.
This is an option which does sometimes happen. And there is motivation to make happen more often, at least for EU-wide services. And there is also the side that it's doesn't have to happen between countries, it could be also happen the local level, like between administration of cities in the same country. The main reasoning here is more about spreading awarness and building the mindset that sharing code on all levels and working together even on such internal tools, can be good and should be increased.
> French government won't deploy a Polish public health management website just because they found it on Github.
Some governments have also their own platforms, specifically for co-working on code accross administrations. They are usually not public for reasons.
> For projects of such magnitude you need deep mutual cooperation between both governments, and a lot of changes. Making the code open-source is the least important part, the code can be just shared privately.
You still have to put it under a licence when you are co-working, even when it's shared privatly. Open Source does not neccessaly mean that the source is automatically accessable to the whole world.
The management, the government and the eventually the tax payers.
If the government wants to add a small change to the tax code, if it's not an open source software, they'd have to hire the same company that wrote it in the first place. That's when the companies tend to jack up the prices to crazy numbers.
I have personally witnessed companies winning the initial government contracts by undercutting everyone and then charging them 10X for even the tiniest of modifications. Some times the companies even flat out reject the future contracts because they are stuck with a better project elsewhere and the government is stuck with useless old binary.
If the server side software is open source, depending on the policy, you can also submit your changes to that software that lets you submit your taxes with your own python script.
Having a different company do contract work does not require the source to be open, it just requires that the government owns it (as they get to choose what to do with it then).
Also, if no company is on a payroll because they are stuck with better projects, what makes you think someone that is not familiar with the code base would accept a merge request from an unknown party? Or if it was accepted, what makes you think this wouldn't immediately be abused to create loopholes and vulnerabilities?
This is a very strange statement and you probably have some specific situation in mind that isn't really representative.
Normally when you hire people to write your code they do a work for hire, unless your contract says otherwise, you own the rights. There are some minor exceptions, typically for countries that treat commercial and artistic copyright differently, but that's it. I've been hired to add changes to people's software thousands of times, and it's never been on the table that I get some kind of ownership of their source code.
The license said source code is under is completely irrelevant. Especially in this question of tax authorities. That source code is normally not under some public license at all because it's their internal processes anyway, they may change at any time and the employ a number of programmers to do so. Plus a handful of consultants.
What fraction of global software spending does the EU command?
I love the vision. I'm just sceptical of how seriously it's being pursued if it's another Brussels project without resource commitments.
I think that might be the wrong approach, at least in this day and age. The spirit is good, but that software has cost good money to produce, and universities are dependent on external revenue. It's not unreasonable to charge for the things they produce.
Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?
Obviously, but most of university research - at least in Europe - is funded by public money. The idea is that research funded by public money should be public by default, unless there's a reason to do otherwise.
>Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?
Yes, of course.
And it's good to realize what 'public' means in this case: paid for by the general public. What companies produce is also (often) paid for by them, only not via taxes but through purchases, subscriptions, etc. Why should the software produced by companies be exempt?
Ah wait, you're somebody else. Why the somewhat unhinged attack on Europe? Because Europe is getting US tech for free?
When it is funded publicly it certainly is. A key feature of the university research system is that it is where people are supported without the expectation that their work is going to be commercially useful in any near-term time frame. If something is going to be commercially valuable then people should develop it in the private sphere. Nothing stopping them. In fact, that is basically what the US does and it has been wildly successful and relegated the EU to being a technical backwater trying to figure out how to get out from under the US's commercial dominance.
> Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?
Yes. Knowledge is for everyone. Even the Americans. Trying to hold back the progress of the entire species because the US knows how to pump out software is a remarkably myopic strategy.
Idk where you got that idea from, but it's not an accurate picture since the mid 1980s. Yes, there is "fundamental" research, which is mostly a label for commercially not that interesting work (and cannot be expected to yield much open source anyway), but short-term project work and third-party funding are big. Also, much of the research is done with an eye towards profit, certainly in the medical and tech sector. And in the US, universities rely on a lot of private money.
> Knowledge
Knowledge isn't OSS. This (part of the) thread is specifically about (usable) software.
> the progress of the entire species
Them's big words.
That doesn’t mean “free as in beer,” but “free as in speech.” I do understand the potential for misinterpretation, but one could easily add “after paying for it” and those freedoms don’t change.
It occurs to me that this is a rather US-centric analogy.
edit: I'm specifically referring to people losing their jobs and similar retaliations due to being on the left, or making public statements that the current administration and supporters don't like.
Brandon Eich's political donation comes to mind.
A lawyer once described what you are calling Free Speech as merely "Protection of the First Speech." You believe that Brandon Eich should be able to speak (the first speech), but that the other people around him should not be able to say what they want in reaction to it (the second speech). Brandon Eich did say things without any government retaliation- and the people who worked at Mozilla didn't want to be associated with that, and so he chose to resign before the organization fell apart. Because those people around Mozilla have free speech rights as well, they are not forced to associate with Mozilla.
Similarly, a company choosing to fire an employee because of their speech is not really a free-speech issue. The company can fire you for pretty much any reason (at least in America- some countries have stronger worker protections), because they don't want to be associated with you any more. On the other hand, if a Government official suggests that you should be fired for something you said in your private life, then your free speech rights are being violated, even if the company does not fire you. It is only when the government gets involved that it becomes a Free Speech issue.
Obligatory XKCD to help you understand why you are wrong about what "Free Speech" means: https://xkcd.com/1357/
The whole corona fabrication wasn't that long ago when governments directly mandated to silent dissident voices (even the scientific ones) and push a whole group of normal people into burning anyone who'd point out the obvious inconsistencies.
this is my favorite (mainly because they also call out donations to Ron Paul.) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controver...
While no politician commented directly, acting like it was just his peers and not part of national political conversation is silly.
The Guardian is actually a British publication, which is a bit orthogonal from the original discussion of US free speech. It might be more accurate to say that this was part of an international political conversation. This is because Bradon Eich, the leader of an organization which provides products internationally, made public donations to political groups that seek to strip rights from others. He has a first amendment right to do so.
As OP states, the rest of the world has a right (in the US, legally; elsewhere, perhaps morally) to respond to Brandon Eich, and Mozilla. If they believe that his views may influence the organization negatively - either due to bad press or through his other behaviors within the organization - they are also granted free speech to call out this behavior.
What we are seeing now is actual government agencies and officials working hard to remove people from their jobs - both in the public and private sectors - in response to views that don't align with their own.
It's not clear to me what your argument is exactly.
To quote Andrew Sullivan > "McCarthyism applied by civil actors".
When people with large platforms target you, you're just as screwed regardless of their status as elected officials. To be outraged by one and excuse the other is laughable.
We should be allowed to discuss openly without being worried of losing job and humiliated.
Right now, I cannot discuss openly. Majority are silent. And loud ones are a minority.
Kevin hart losing Oscar hosting for a comment 12 some years ago. People who tried to cancel Eminem for his old songs and Rowan Atkinson's speech comes to mind on the top of my head.
Getting offended is a YOU problem. Not a me problem.
Until it's possible for us from both sides can talk openly, these will continue. Just like opposition political parties when one side is in more power, they will try and punish the other.
Adopting the word "gratis" when the speaker means "at no monetary cost" also helps clarify things.
Someone can give you a free beer and a complimentary license to manufacture and distribute that same beer, and even make changes to the recipe.
Yes, I believe so.
"Free as in bonus" vs "free as in liberty".
"Free software" is a fine descriptor. It's needlessly confusing to repeat that "beer as in slurred speech" thing, though. Free software can be free "as in beer"[0], but the way it gets said makes it sound like it zero cost software is an anti-goal, rather than pointing out that it's not the true goal. Then the "free as in speech" thing is kind of pointless because you can just say "free as in freedom".
Free software is about fundamental computer freedom -- freedom to own your computer, inspect and modify, etc. -- we already have this word.
[0] where who why free beer ever? 0% relatable, 0/10 would still like a free beer though
what the hell does that mean
Proponents of what we now call "open source" wanted to distinguish between two senses of the word "free". One sense is not having to pay for something, as in "Come over to my party, the beer is free." Anther sense is "I can criticize the government, because the country I live in is free." People in the free software and open source movement began to phrase the dichotomy in these terms to illustrate how one sense of the word "free" is much more important than the other. The fact that you don't have to pay for some piece of software is nice, but what's more important is that you aren't beholden to the company that developed it.
Some would argue its a little deeper than that
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
If there is API I should be able to make my own mobile app to access data or use other app.
Providers push ads and do shitty stuff to block any and all 3rd party access.
If it is that bad business just go away.
That's one of the reasons the EU has had so many political problems with Hungary and Poland in the last decade: their drift to authoritarian forms of government (including weakening the judiciary in Poland) didn't impact trade at all. Nonetheless, it went against the humanitarian values.
I'm no EU fanboy (there's plenty to criticize), but regarding chat control and surveillance, it's important to see from which part of the EU institutions the push comes: the council. The council consists of the governments of the member states. It's not the big bad EU trying to force surveillance on the innocent countries; it's the governments trying to push domestically unpopular surveillance through the EU. The directly elected EU parliament has so far always prevented this push.
Europe clearly has endemic talent, and I'm not even sure it's a funding problem rather than an organizational/leadership one. They could throw money at developers who already have decent if humble QoL, or they could bring them together to build large systems that can compete with American big tech.
https://www.ngi.eu/ngi-projects/
https://nlnet.nl/project/ currently listing 1566 foss projects that have received financial support
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...
---
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.
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.
A technically-superior solution nobody wants to use is useless.
This can never be true. Politics drives all decisions.
National politics may not. But assuming technical decisions are made on an aethereal plane above humanity is just assuming away complexity. It's the excuse of a technical team that developed something superb for no actual user.
It is a "call for evidence", not a directive. It can be summarized as: for our software needs, we depend too much on non-EU countries, we heard about this open source thing, will it solve our problem?
They studied the political aspect (dependence on non-EU countries), that's their job. They are now asking experts about the technical aspect.
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.
What are those harshnesses?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Waste some - but not too much - of your energy poking our EU orgs to the right way.
The point being that any businesses that sell proprietary software will do the same to kill competition, but in the long run they will end up costing more.
The real issue is government spending is that procurement is very broken even if you would opt for buying support for open source Software. This is not a problem China nor North Korea have due to how corporations have no easy way to influence politics in those Authoritarian countries.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Previously this also wasn't much of a problem. The US tech companies were international companies and less "US" companies. Now they aligned themselves with the US regime and are e.g. a supply chain vulnerability and properly taxing them causes issues in national defence (via Ukraine). I for one did not anticipate this own-goal w.r.t. Europe by the US.
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.
These are not the main obstacles. US monopolies are. See this article: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/
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.
It's ultimately the same thing; if in your async queue system your application was denied you'd still be liable.
Then there are high energy costs, high salary costs, limited mobility of the workforce (partly due to ongoing housing crisis), entrenched overseas competition that doesn't have to deal with same challenges.
Together, these add to a deadly mix. Paradoxically, software is less affected than other industries. But even here it's bad.
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.
A move to alternatives is an imperative! I hope it works for them and stimulates their tech sector.
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.
I don't think you'll get a complete switch here, this is looking more like "let's cultivate a backup option in case they really do start turning stuff off"
But given limited resources, we tend not to devote a ton of resources to every possible tail risk since there's millions of them.
Europe should focus on building domestic tech capacity for other reasons (our own future prosperity being one), but being worried about Microsoft Word access over some silly news headlines is not one of them.
Every single productivity suite can open/modify word docs and powerpoints and excel formats. This is not a huge issue.
While MS didn’t cut off the whole organization and try to soften the language around what they did, it seems they could be compelled to do so under more strict executive sanctions.
I don’t think an entire institution would suddenly come crashing to its knees but it would certainly be a pressing problem to be facing if the US or some other state actor was also mounting some other form of pressure or attack.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/31/international_crimina...
So while unlikely, it is not a huge jump for the Trump administration to try sanctioning EU institutions they don't like.
Also considering the US's unilateral and often violent and aggressive and illegal way of doing things, especially with this administration, I think we're a bit past hypothetical meteor-like hypotheticals.
At this point any usage of destructive leverage the USA has over Europe should be seen as a real possibility, if not a likely one, when it comes to negotiation with or the expansionist desires of the USA.
Sometimes I wonder where does the hypocrisy ends.
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.
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
but
"The new strategy will address the economic and political importance of open source, as a crucial contribution to a strategic framework for EU technological sovereignty, competitiveness and cybersecurity." (as per the call document)
This means OSS, but with an ecosystem that does NOT rely on anything non-EU for development, maintenance and distribution. This brings the price from "literally costs nothing" to hundreds of millions Euro.
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.
[1] https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...
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?
The US has, unfortunately, proven to be a very unreliable partner.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
That's the goal of the nationalists, which includes the current US administration and many in business and prominently in SV. Why do they want to sacrifice their own wealth, and freedom and peace worldwide? It's an important question.
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.
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.
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...
Phelinofist•15h ago