The issue is, if the request is too vague or obviously infeasible, it will simply get rejected.
I’m all for telling our politicians we need to move away from walled gardens and US based big tech. But I think recent events have already made that clear to them.
A strongly worded feeling might feel good to get supported. But if we want actual change, we need to request something that can be acted upon. Of course the time line would be long and it’s up to the EU to implement it. But if we want the time line to be shorter, we need to provide something they can use.
If we can identify some low hanging fruit without a lot of strings attached, I’m sure we can put a proposal together. Then we would need to drum up support, which can be hard but is probably at least partially doable.
Having worked with some local suppliers for government software and actively participating in the domain myself I would expect a lot of pushback but I don’t see it as impossible within Europe. So far everyone shifts based on requirements. I expect some things to lag behind.
License: OSI compliant is enough and easy to express. That even allows for modern AI because it’s just open weights iirc. There is EUPL but I expect that to be too specific.
I don’t see why you’d make the suggestion that only foss can be used by any supplying company. It seems obvious that the software itself and the systems it runs on should be open source. The software solution should be open source.
I would appreciate a timetable. Shifting existing contracts will be very hard and expensive. For things made within Europe, assuming this is a European initiative, I expect almost all open market solutions to switch to a different model.
But even lacking all this detail, it shows a clear desire of Europeans to use foss, and thus makes it more appealing to add this into law.
The issue is, if the request is too vague or obviously infeasible, it will simply get rejected.
I’m all for telling our politicians we need to move away from walled gardens and US based big tech. But I think recent events have already made that clear to them.
A strongly worded feeling might feel good to get supported. But if we want actual change, we need to request something that can be acted upon. Of course the time line would be long and it’s up to the EU to implement it. But if we want the time line to be shorter, we need to provide something they can use.
If we can identify some low hanging fruit without a lot of strings attached, I’m sure we can put a proposal together. Then we would need to drum up support, which can be hard but is probably at least partially doable.
Having worked with some local suppliers for government software and actively participating in the domain myself I would expect a lot of pushback but I don’t see it as impossible within Europe. So far everyone shifts based on requirements. I expect some things to lag behind.
License: OSI compliant is enough and easy to express. That even allows for modern AI because it’s just open weights iirc. There is EUPL but I expect that to be too specific.
I don’t see why you’d make the suggestion that only foss can be used by any supplying company. It seems obvious that the software itself and the systems it runs on should be open source. The software solution should be open source.
I would appreciate a timetable. Shifting existing contracts will be very hard and expensive. For things made within Europe, assuming this is a European initiative, I expect almost all open market solutions to switch to a different model.
But even lacking all this detail, it shows a clear desire of Europeans to use foss, and thus makes it more appealing to add this into law.