Despite its good intentions, the European Commission is missing the opportunity to champion free software as a genuine priority

Submitted by egonnu on 18 June, 2026 - 09:09

Press release: June 17, 2026

On June 3, 2026, the European Commission published its Tech Sovereignty Package (a collection of texts for "European technological sovereignty"). This notably includes an "open source strategy" component. While the Commission provides, on several aspects, a fairly accurate overview of the challenges and obstacles to overcome in order to democratise free software - in particular taking into account their "ecosystems" - it unfortunately does not seem ready to draw the necessary conclusions from it, refusing to defend a genuine normative principle of priority for free software, and for open formats in the public sector.

The Tech Sovereignty Package consists of a set of texts and measures, a "package", to strengthen "European technological sovereignty". Free software is presented by the Commission as one of the cornerstones of this package. A specific "open source strategy" is dedicated to it, alongside a proposed regulation regarding the development of cloud computing and artificial intelligence (Cloud and AI Development Act, CADA), a proposed regulation on semiconductors, and a strategic road-map for digitalisation and AI in the energy sector.

The Commission's communication on European Tech Sovereignty

Two preliminary points to be aware of

Even before discussing the content of the strategy the Commission intends to implement, the fact that it is, indeed, a "strategy", rather than a draft regulation, is far from insignificant. This reflects a more restrained level of political commitment, since a strategy ultimately reflects only the vision of the European executive, whereas legislative acts are intended to establish normative principles, binding all European institutions and Member States.

The Commission's communication develops an approach to "technological sovereignty", focused heavily on geographical considerations - that is, as an opposition between the European Union (EU) and the rest of the world. The issue is therefore often presented primarily as a dependence on "non-EU suppliers" and free software as a means to develop "alternative solutions" in Europe. Rather than speaking of "sovereignty" (a sometimes ambiguous notion), April prefers the expression "strategic autonomy", which places the essential consideration of the level of control and trust as the heart of the matter.

A strategy focused on supporting free software "ecosystems"

The strategy presents itself as "full lifecycle approach, covering the entire chain from research and development to market uptake, deployment, and the long-term maintenance and governance of critical open source components, including within EU institutions" and intends to define "concrete actions to reinforce the broader open source ecosystem by supporting contributors, foundations, companies and users".

Indeed, in light of these statements, we can acknowledge some fairly accurate analyses and interesting announcements from the Commission, which are certainly welcome. Let us note, in summary and by no means exhaustively:

the consideration given to "free software communities" for the maintenance and development of software, the importance of supporting them, and of collaborating with them;
the desire to create "demand" to allow the European Union's "communities and businesses" to develop; particular attention to the financing and maintenance of free software, especially the most critical, notably with a "Open Source Maintenance Instrument" and a program aimed at guaranteeing continuity of access to the most critical software components by equipping itself with the capacity to reproduce and develop at a European level, including to fork if necessary - that is to say to resume the development of a project, independently of the original project;
an acknowledgment of a structural disadvantage for free software companies, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, in public procurement. Tenders are much more geared towards proprietary solutions;
an effort on training in free software development;
the prospect of better integrating free software communities into standardisation processes.

The CNLL, an association of "open digital businesses", also paints an encouraging picture of the Commission's approach from this perspective, considering it a "historic turning point" with "the elevation of free software to the status of an instrument of European industrial policy." 1

Another missed opportunity to establish a normative principle of priority for free software and open formats

Despite the Commission's apparent clarity of thought on several points, it misses the opportunity to establish a normative principle of priority for free software, which is a minimum measure that is necessary to reverse the balance of power still deeply in favour of "digital giants", a balance largely maintained by the dependence of public institutions in many Member States. While the Commission states in its communication that an "open source first principle […] could reverse this trend", this ends up, in the draft regulation on cloud computing and artificial intelligence - which is already limited in scope - as a mere "encouragement" of the use of free software. It is therefore merely a declaration of intent, without normative force, exactly as was the case in France with Article 16 of the Law for a Digital Republic in 20162.

Even worse, according to CNLL3, it would seem that the European Commission has even backtracked: a few days before its official communication, its strategy contained a more ambitious principle and closer to a real priority, before eventually falling back on a version devoid of political, normative and operational impact.

Free software is increasingly recognised, at an institutional level, as one of the essential components of a coherent "strategic autonomy" policy, and this Tech Sovereignty Package is a new example of this. It presents a number of observations, as well as interesting and welcome measures in a context of an ongoing significant dependence on "digital giants".

However, in the face of such a level of dependence, it's no longer about, to quote the Commission, "allow[ing] free software solutions to compete with proprietary solutions", but rather to aim, in the long term, for their complete replacement.

"It is well overdue to change scale and move from a strategy of 'support' to a real policy of removing dependencies, making free software the default choice and restricting proprietary software to the status of duly justified exceptions," reminds Étienne Gonnu, advocacy officer for April.

April hopes that the Commission will finally have the courage, in the upcoming negotiations, to correct course and pursue such an ambition.