Public money, public code
In shortSoftware the public paid for should be software the public may use.
At a glance
- Origin
- A campaign by the Free Software Foundation Europe, running since 2017
- Core demand
- Publish software developed with public funds under a free licence
- Implementation in Germany
- openCode as the public sector's code platform; ZenDiS as the company for sovereign workplace software
- Best-known result
- openDesk, a workplace bundle assembled from open components
- Most important side effect
- Reuse between administrations instead of parallel redevelopment of the same application
- Limit
- A free licence alone secures neither maintenance nor operation nor support
The demand is simple: software whose development was paid for with taxpayers' money should be published under a free licence. Whoever paid for it should be allowed to use, share and adapt it.
A campaign has since become administrative practice — more slowly than hoped, but with visible results.
What has come of it
openCode is the platform on which administrations publish and reuse their code. The real benefit lies less in openness than in reuse: the same line-of-business application is no longer procured afresh in sixteen federal states in parallel.
ZenDiS is the company bundling sovereign workplace software for public administration. Its best-known result is openDesk — a workplace package of open components covering the stages described under Sovereign workplace.
La Suite numérique in France pursues the same approach. That both sides now work on shared components is the more interesting news than any individual product.
Why this matters to companies
Not for ideological reasons but because of the market. Where administrations procure open components, a supply of service providers appears who operate, maintain and support them. That supply was missing in recent years and was the main reason companies hesitated.
On top of that: what carries a hundred thousand public-sector workplaces will carry a mid-sized company with eighty.
What a free licence delivers — and what it does not
It secures continued operation. Nobody can lock you out, discontinue the product and leave you without access; if necessary another service provider takes over. That solves the format layer of Vendor lock-in.
It does not secure maintenance, operation, security updates or support. Those still cost money, and a project with no active community and no service provider behind it is not a safe harbour but a task.
The sober question is therefore not "is it open?" but: who maintains it, how many independent contributors are there, and whom could I engage if today's provider disappeared?
Common questions
- Why does this concern companies?
- For two reasons. First, it produces software companies can also use — openDesk and its individual components. Second, the market shifts: where administrations procure open components, service providers appear who operate and maintain them.
- Does a free licence mean it is free of charge?
- No. The licence governs use, distribution and modification, not the cost of operation, maintenance and support. Those still cost money — but the provider becomes replaceable.
- What does this have to do with lock-in?
- A free licence solves the format layer and continued operation: nobody can lock you out. Processes, in-house knowledge and contracts still bind — so it does not replace an assessment of switching costs.
- Does this exist outside Germany?
- Yes, including France with La Suite numérique and at European level through interoperability requirements. The Franco-German work on shared components is the most notable part.
Sources
See also
Related terms
- Sovereign workplaceA sovereign workplace is not a product but five stages in the right order.
- Vendor lock-inLock-in is not a property of a product. It is a number: what leaving would cost you.
- Digital sovereigntySovereignty is not a state but the answer to four questions: law, operations, data, capability.