Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
FSFE
Free Software Foundation Europe is a charity that empowers users to control technology by promoting free software.
Lobbying Activity
FSFE demands 'Public Money? Public Code!' for EU Digital Decade
5 Jan 2026
Message — The FSFE calls for the 'Public Money? Public Code!' principle to be established in EU policy. They demand sustainable funding for Free Software to ensure European digital sovereignty.12
FSFE Urges Open Source Mandate for EU Public Procurement
6 Mar 2025
Message — The FSFE advocates for a rule where software bought with public funds must be open source. They demand clear procurement criteria to prevent deceptive marketing and ensure code is shared via public repositories.12
Why — This would eliminate vendor lock-in, enabling public bodies to independently modify and secure their infrastructure.3
Impact — Proprietary software giants lose guaranteed revenue and their dominance over public digital infrastructure.4
Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Teknikföretagen
30 Jan 2025 · Digital infrastructure
Response to Rules specifying the obligations laid down in Articles 21(5) and 23(11) of the NIS 2 Directive
13 Jul 2024
Feedback by NLnet Labs, OpenSSF and FSFE.
Read full responseFree Software Foundation Europe urges open-source digital infrastructure
29 Jun 2024
Message — The FSFE calls for the 'Public Money? Public Code!' principle for publicly funded software. They also demand device neutrality and the protection of encrypted communication systems.123
Why — This would break dependence on major tech firms and foster a competitive European market.4
Impact — Large hardware manufacturers and gatekeeper platforms lose their monopoly control over software ecosystems.5
Free Software Foundation Europe urges transparency for standard patents
10 Aug 2023
Meeting with Maximilian Strotmann (Cabinet of Commissioner Johannes Hahn)
4 Jul 2023 · interoperability, public sector open source
Meeting with Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)
31 May 2023 · Interoperable Europe Act
Meeting with Ivars Ijabs (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)
31 May 2023 · Open source software and interoperability
Meeting with Jordi Solé (Member of the European Parliament)
24 Apr 2023 · Interoperable Europe Act
Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament)
7 Feb 2023 · Financing of Free and Open Source Software
Response to Interim evaluation of Horizon Europe
29 Jul 2022
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charity that empowers users to control technology by advocating for Free Software. In a digital world, Free Software is the fundament of Open Knowledge, Open Innovation and Open Science. Together with nearly 200 civil society organizations, we ask with our campaign “Public Money? Public Code!” (https://publiccode.eu/) for legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be made publicly available under a Free Software licence. If it is public money, it should be public code as well.
Software is an integral part of today’s society. Our daily interactions, transactions, education, communication channels, work and life environments rely heavily on software. 'Free Software' refers to all programs distributed under terms and licences that allow users to run the software for any purpose, to study how the program works, to adapt the program to their needs, to improve the program and to distribute the improved version of it.
The Horizon Europe program enables a huge amount of research and innovation in Europe while it will boost EU competitiveness. In order for the program to reach its full potential, it is essential that others will be able to build on the results generated by public funding. Reproducing previous research and building new knowledge upon what has already been done is at the heart of the scientific process, and the free flow of information is a key element of it.
Projects should not have to reinvent the wheel if others have already done part of the work that is required. Encouraging reuse of project results should therefore be a central element across Horizon Europe. In order to enable the reuse of project results both within and outside Horizon Europe, it is essential that they are published, under licensing conditions which enable the public to use, study, share and improve on those results. For results consisting in software, Free Software licenses should be default.
European public bodies should ensure they have full control over the software and the computer systems at the core of our governmental digital infrastructures, thus, Europe can establish trustworthy systems, and achieve technological sovereignty. In order for public funds to be spent in a targeted fashion, recent data and analysis are essential. Horizon Europe should therefore back projects looking into participation in Free Software projects, with a perspective of identifying those areas that would benefit most from European funding.
Horizon Europe should promote research and development of different technologies, implemented in Free Software, in order to give people full control. In consequence, Research and Development activities concerning European Free Software projects should benefit from European Union funding for reasons including, among others, Free Software is a key driving force for the IT industry in Europe and the world. It is also a technology area where Europe is clearly in a position of global leadership, it enhances digital sovereignty while it boosts interoperability in Europe.
We therefore require for the framework programme of Horizon Europe to:
* Have an overview of projects using or releasing Free Software, as well as the number of projects that used or release software under proprietary licenses;
* In the latter case, we require a justification of why a Free Software license was not taken into consideration.
* Assure that the research carried along Horizon Europe to be in line with the European Commission Open Source Strategy as well as with the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (C(2021)8759).
Read full responseResponse to Ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020
29 Jul 2022
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charity that empowers users to control technology by advocating for Free Software. In a digital world, Free Software is the fundament of Open Knowledge, Open Innovation and Open Science. Together with nearly 200 civil society organizations, we ask with our campaign “Public Money? Public Code!” (https://publiccode.eu/) for legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be made publicly available under a Free Software licence. If it is public money, it should be public code as well.
Software is an integral part of today’s society. Our daily interactions, transactions, education, communication channels, work and life environments rely heavily on software. "Free Software" refers to all programs distributed under terms and licences that allow users to run the software for any purpose, to study how the program works, to adapt the program to their needs, to improve the program and to distribute the improved version of it.
The Horizon 2020 program had the potential to enable a huge amount of research and development in Europe. In order for the program to reach its full potential, we consider it was essential that others were able to build on the results generated by the project participants with public funding. Therefore, we require the European Commission to provide with an overview of the projects results consisting in software that were made available under a Free Software license as well as those that were release under a proprietary license. In the latter case, we request a justification that led to the decision of not taking into consideration a Free Software license.
On the other hand, European public bodies should ensure they have full control over the software and the computer systems at the core of our governmental digital infrastructures, thus, Europe can establish trustworthy systems, and achieve technological sovereignty. In order for public funds to be spent in a targeted fashion, recent data and analysis are essential. We have demanded Horizon 2020 to back projects looking into current participation in Free Software projects, with a perspective of identifying those areas that would benefit most from European funding. This should include an investigation of the barriers to participation in Free Software projects. We would appreciate any findings related to the matter if such investigation took place, since we would like to verify if the research carried along Horizon 2020 was in line with existing frameworks such as the European Commission Open Source Strategy as well as with the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (C(2021)8759)
Read full responseMeeting with Sergey Lagodinsky (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)
19 Jul 2022 · Artificial Intelligence Act
Response to Sustainable Products Initiative
20 Jun 2022
The main objectives of this regulation are to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products and improve the functioning of the internal market. The Free Software Foundation Europe supports that goal and wants to highlight specific necessary regulations to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of electronic products in particular:
As outlined in Articel 5.1, ecodesign requirements shall be established to improve - among others - the following product aspects: durability, reusability, repairability, upgradability and possibility of maintenance and refurbishment.
Most of nowadays electronic devices, in particular phones and tablets, can be reused and upgraded by installing a Free Software operating system on it. Installing such a Free Software operating system is a way out of obsolescence often imposed by manufacturers of proprietary software products. This way, electronic devices can be used much longer and electronic waste can be reduced.
Unfortunately, manufacturers often impose technical or legal restrictions on installing Free Software operating systems on their devices. This is one of the most crucial elements that need to be fixed within the upcoming delegated acts regarding ecodesign requirements: Users shall have the universal right to install any software on any device.
Within the here proposed directive, Art 5.3 states that "ecodesign requirements shall, as appropriate, include (...) (b) information requirements as set out in Article 7".
So in order to establish the universal right to install any software on any device we propose to re-formulate the current Art 7.2.b.II to include "(ii) information for consumers and other end-users on how to re-install the default operating system or installing another operating system of choice."
Another important point on the longevity of electronic devices covers their interoperability. As outlined in article 5 of this regulation "Ecodesign requirements shall meet the following criteria: (...) there shall be no proprietary technology imposed on manufacturers or other economic actors;"
The repair sector is is an important economic actor in the EU. More and more this repair sector cannot further operate because manufacturers impose proprietary technologies on them in order to offer repair service. To balance the interests and in order for the repair sector to not being imposed a proprietary technology, again there is the need for the right to install any operating system. This way they manufacturers can sell their devices with proprietary systems but third-party economies can reuse, upgrade and maintain the devices by installing Free Software operating systems. In addition, full access to hardware must be guaranteed by the obligation of manufacturers to publish their drivers, tools and interfaces under a Free Software license. Both regulations are key for competition, aftermarkets and longevity of hardware, thus helping to save resources and reduce ewaste in multiple ways.
Finally, in case of connected devices that are sold with an integrated access to a remote software service or cloud service, the goal to not impose proprietary technologies on manufacturers or other economic actors can only be guaranteed by offering devices and their connected services in open standards. This enables customers to buy a device from one manufacturer and use the service from another. Thus enjoying competition and longevity of their devices in one.
We welcome Art 9.1.d that "all information included in the product passport shall be based on open, standards, developed with an inter-operable format and shall be machine-
readable, structured, and searchable". Still it should be added that the Product passport registry in Article 12 should be offered as Open Data to citizens in the EU. This way, the information on product passes within the EU is open to third-party analyses, customer and environmental information.
Read full responseResponse to Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales
5 Apr 2022
The Free Software Foundation Europe is a charity that empowers users to control technology.
For a more sustainable consumption of good, promoting repair and reuse we developed the following policy recommendation:
• End-users should have the right to freely choose operating systems and software running on their devices;
• End-users should have the right to freely choose between service providers to connect their devices with;
• Devices must be interoperable and compatible with open standards;
• Source code of drivers, tools and interfaces are published under a free license.
For a detailed explanation regarding these demands, please see the paper attached.
Read full responseResponse to Declaration of Digital Principles
9 Jun 2021
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charity that empowers users to control technology and represents European citizens and organisations that value their digital rights, sovereignty and liberties.
Software is deeply involved in all aspects of our lives; and it is important that this technology empowers rather than restricts us. Free Software, also called Open Source, gives everybody the rights to use, understand, adapt and share software. These rights help support other fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, press and privacy. Also it helps to achieve digital sovereignty, secure the digital space, dissolve digital divide, foster interoperability and transparency and thus also foster access and participation. Therefore we urge the European Commission and public administrations in Europe to release publicly financed software developed for the public sector under a Free and Open Source Software licence to achieve the ‘European way’ for the digital society.
During the COVID-19 pandemic it became obvious how important interoperability and transparency of software is. As an example, the development of Corona tracing apps have shown that interoperability is important for cross-border solutions in Europe as well as transparency leads to acceptance of the citizens. The crisis has also shown all the things that have not been tackled in recent years. Insufficient interoperability and transparency remains a very real problem these days among administrations and public bodies. Many potentials still remain unfulfilled while dependencies on non-interoperable applications are further cemented. Often, administrations reinvent the wheel again and again, and move further into dependencies instead of working together, sharing expertise and costs. Cross-border collaboration in the development of digital solutions in public administrations is still rare. This is mainly due to the fact that over the years dependencies and vendor-lock ins have been built up in closed and isolated systems instead of relying on open, collaborative solutions. Thus the explicit promotion of open standards and Free Software is a key factor of enhanced interoperability. The European Commission addressed the issue with its Open Source Strategy "Think Open". However, the strategy remains with loopholes, lacks concrete actions for implementation and does not apply to public bodies in the Member States.
Citizens and companies demand more and more open, efficient, borderless, interoperable solutions. Also they ask for user-friendly, personalized solutions being trustworthy, (E2EE) secure and respecting fundamental rights like the right to privacy. In contrast, isolated systems will lead to electronic barriers that prevent cross-border and cross-system data flows, and the sharing, reuse and further development of digital solutions. This undermines the founding treaties of the EU: the free movement of goods, people, services, and capital; free competition; and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Thus, Free Software, transparency, openness and interoperability are the enabler for breaking down barriers and fostering digital transformation and innovation, paving the way to a ‘European way’ for the digital society.
Therefore, the FSFE, together with more than 200 administrations and organisations, demands with its "Public Money? Public Code!" initiative, to establish Free Software as a standard for publicly funded software. We demand concrete data-oriented monitoring of the adopted strategies with measurable reports of progress evaluation. Public administrations that follow this principle can benefit, and thus citizens and economy, from numerous advantages: Cooperation with other government bodies, independence from individual vendors, potential tax savings, promotion of innovation and a more solid basis for IT security. Here you can learn more about the "Public Money? Public Code!" initiative: https://publiccode.eu/
Read full responseResponse to Environmental impact of mobile phones and tablets - Energy Labelling
27 Jan 2021
90% or more of the overall resource and energy consumption in the lifetime of nowadays smartphones and tablets incur by their production and global transport but less than 10% by their actual usage time. Thus, extending usage lifetime of produced mobile phones and tablets (hereafter together addressed as “phones”) is key to lower their environmental impact.
Several factors need to be addressed in order to extend usage lifetimes of phones. One crucial factor is software obsolescence. With this feedback, the FSFE likes to help understand the important part that software obsolescence plays and how to overcome the problem. We are happy to provide more detailed feedback if wanted.
Software obsolescence in the mobile sector usually comes into effect when hardware manufacturers sell their current phone version ‘PHv1’ with the current operating system in version ‘OSv1’ but shortly after release they do not offer updates to their operating system version anymore. Instead, the same manufacturer publishes a new phone version ‘PHv2’ with a successive version of the operating system, ‘OSv2’. The successive operating system ‘OSv2’ however cannot be installed on the previous hardware of phone ‘PHv1’. This leaves users in the dilemma of a) not updating their phone and thus be vulnerable to security problems. Or b) to buy a new smartphone ‘PHv2’ just to run the new operating system ‘OSv2’, although the old hardware of ‘PHv1’ is technically perfectly fine and also technically sufficient to run ‘OSv2’. The problem thus is artificially created by manufacturers to raise sales of the new phone instead of letting consumers keep using the old one. This is a very common problem in the Android sector – the most used operating system in the smartphone industry.
One solution to the problem would be to enforce a guaranteed minimal support-time of security updates by manufacturers. And the obligation to publish the code under a Free Software license if no more security support is or can be provided. The free licensing would quickly enable a lively aftermarket to grow and further support existing hardware and their operating systems.
In the Android world such an aftermarket is possible by developing and installing so-called “Custom Roms”. These are forks of the official Android-versions that often enable consumers to not only keep their current system up to date but to also install new versions of Android on their old smartphones.
Manufacturers and third parties however plan with software obsolescence by preventing consumers from installing Custom Roms with technical and legal measures. Technical measures are for example locking the bootloader, legal measures for example are threatening to void your warranty by flashing a Custom Rom on your device. Both measures however are against the very idea of customer’s individual property after buying hardware. In order to overcome planned software obsolescence and extend usage lifetimes of phones, the Commission must ensure any customer’s full right to their own hardware including access to the bootloader and the ability to replace the operating system at will. Technical and legal limitations to these rights must be abolished. For consumer protection, for the right to property and for environmental issues.
Apart from the potential environmental impact by offering consumer’s the right to their own hardware and extend its usage lifetimes via third-party service providers, these approaches will also help to open up a sector currently heavily dominated by monopolies outside Europe. Offering competition through Custom Roms will help a lively aftermarket economy to grow inside Europe within one of the most innovative and fast-pacing tech sectors.
For its full potential, measures taken against software obsolescence have to be flanked with other measures that extend hardware lifetime. This includes but is not limited to a general right to repair, modular design and better recycling abilities.
Read full response13 Nov 2020
In recent years the European Commission tried to foster interoperability for administrations through the ISA2 Project. Interoperability is the enabler for breaking down barriers and fostering digital transformation and innovation. Still, insufficient interoperability remains a very real problem these days. Many potentials still remain unfulfilled while dependencies on non-interoperable applications are further cemented. Often, administrations reinvent the wheel again and again, and move further into dependencies instead of working together, sharing expertise and costs. Cross-border and cross-sector collaboration in the development of digital solutions in public administrations is still rare. This is mainly due to the fact that over the years dependencies and vendor-lock ins have been built up in closed and isolated systems instead of relying on open, collaborative solutions. At the same time, Free Software solutions allowing users to use, study, share and improve the software have been neglected. Thus the explicit promotion of open standards and Free Software is a key factor of enhanced interoperability.
Concrete Goals Needed
However, the promotion of Free Software cannot be realised through words alone. Concrete short-, mid- and long-term measures, structures and budgets are needed. While the European Commission and in particular the ISA2 project emphasises in many places the importance of Free Software for interoperability, security, re-usability, digital sovereignty and cost saving, there is often a lack of concrete, measurable activities to evaluate progress, and thus adapt measures. There are already administrations in Europe who can set an example for others: Barcelona's Digital Transformation Plan has committed to invest 70% of its budget devoted to new services into Free Software development.
Lack of Networking Opportunities
There is also still a lack of sufficient networking opportunities. It is particularly difficult for administrations that have little or no experience with Free Software to get involved. Civil society is also still underrepresented which leads to a waste of potential.
Advantages of Free Software for Interoperability
Free Software enables software distribution and use without any restrictions. The EU-wide sharing and reuse of interoperable Free Software solutions for public administrations could reduce costs and foster innovation not only for businesses, but also for citizens and civil society in their use of digital technologies, and thereby ensure digital sovereignty. By using and improving Free Software, administrations do not have to reinvent the wheel again and again but could focus on the improvement of the software and collaboration across borders and sectors, and modifying the software to fit its own needs, instead of being beholden to the business model of a software vendor.
Additionally, citizens also demand more open, efficient, borderless, interoperable solutions. They also ask for user-friendly, personalised solutions that are trustworthy, (end-to-end) secure and respectful of fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. As seen during the debate around the Corona tracing apps, the use of Free Software plays a major role in terms of acceptance by citizens.
FSFE's Recommendations
Therefore, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) demands establishing Free Software as a standard for publicly funded software. We demand concrete data-oriented monitoring of the adopted strategies with measurable reports of progress evaluation. Public administrations that follow this principle can benefit from numerous advantages: Cooperation with other government bodies, independence from individual vendors, potential tax savings, promotion of innovation and a more solid basis for IT security. As example, the "Public Money? Public Code!" initiative from FSFE is supported by over 180 organisations and administrations across Europe.
Read full responseResponse to European Interoperability Framework (EIF) evaluation and EU governments interoperability strategy
12 Nov 2020
To ensure the interoperability of public services in the EU it is key to strengthen open standards and Free Software.
Citizens demand more and more open, efficient, borderless, interoperable solutions. Also they ask for user-friendly, personalized solutions being trustworthy, (E2EE) secure and respecting fundamental rights, like the right to privacy.
In contrast, isolated systems will lead to electronic barriers that prevent cross-border and cross-system data flows, and the sharing, reuse and further development of digital solutions. This undermines the founding treaties of the EU: the free movement of goods, people, services, and capital; free competition; and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Interoperability is the enabler for breaking down barriers and fostering digital transformation and innovation. Still, insufficient interoperability is a major problem. The explicit promotion of open standards and Free Software is therefore a key factor of enhanced interoperability.
The idea of "open" solutions, technical specifications, and implementations is a prerequisite not only for interoperability, but is also crucial for the idea of technological neutrality, user-centric solutions, and re-usability. It is a principle of not only transparent decision-making but also a enabler for collaboration and avoidance of vendor lock-in. Open standards are subject to public assessment and are accessible without constraints. Such standards are not technically or legally dependent on other non-open formats or protocols. They are submitted to multiple competing vendors and are freely available in multiple implementations.
Only Free Software and its underlying principle of openness allows the creation of fully reusable, secure and privacy-respecting solutions. Free Software enables software distribution and use without any restrictions. Due to this network effect, the use of standards is spurred which in return results in significantly better interoperability. The accessibility of the source code and the design information, as well as the rights to modify, further develop and distribute Free Software, support reusability of good implementations. Software patents have a negative impact on interoperability, even when licensed under “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”(FRAND) basis, since such agreements manipulate standardisation processes and hinder competition.
The FSFE, therefore, encourages the Commission to strengthen the principle of openness for the reuse of technical solutions as the core principle.
Hereby, it is important to ensure that no specific proprietary and closed technical tools should be promoted in order to achieve the desired "interoperability-by-design", but the re-usability and the flexibility of technical solutions that are open, sustainable, transparent and provided under Free Software licenses.
When it comes to the technical interoperability and the re-usability of technical solutions, it is important to not only promote open specifications but to allow software to act as a reference implementation in order to achieve better interoperability. The latter can only be achieved by publishing such software as Free Software.
Reference implementation published under a Free Software license may act as the formal specification without the institutional standard setting process and can be reproduced by any potential service provider. Allowing technology to be implemented directly will result in avoidance of duplicating standards in order for that technology to be applied. Hence, reference implementation under a Free Software license will avoid unnecessary duplication, while at the same encourage competition and enhance interoperability. The EU-wide sharing and reuse of interoperable Free Software solutions for public administrations could also reduce costs and foster innovation not only for businesses, but also for citizens and civil society in their of digital technologies, and thus ensure digital sovereignty.
Read full responseResponse to Intellectual Property Action Plan
13 Aug 2020
The FSFE acknowledges the Commission's commitment to upgrade the existing regulatory system into a fairer environment for the digital economy. Nevertheless, we question the EC's strategy, which may lead to increased regulation on knowledge and intangible wealth. The FSFE understands that achieving a fairer and more sustainable environment for the digital economy is only possible by changing the existing paradigm that fortifying existing monopolies over knowledge and creating new barriers to knowledge sharing leads to progress.
Based on our world-wide experience with Free Software (also known as Open Source), we advocate for a more inclusive and decentralized regulatory system that allows for the sustainable sharing of knowledge and intangible wealth. We recognize this as an opportunity to question the outdated notion that expanding monopolies over knowledge means more progress and question the existing trend to expand state granted monopolies on software. The Free Software regulatory and management model represents one of the best examples the Commission can take to deepen its understanding on how new models based on knowledge sharing are fundamental for a more innovative, fair, and socially just society.
Please see our attached paper for more details.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the Commission Notice on market definition in EU competition law
12 May 2020
The FSFE acknowledges the Commission's initiative to evaluate fundamental terms of Competition Law in the light of the developments of digital technologies in the European markets.
We advocate to broaden the objectives of the consultation in order to permit a better evaluation of civil society and grassroots organisations' positions on market definition as a whole and the functioning of market definition in EU Competition Law. In order to contribute to a fair and inclusive assessment on the on the functioning of the Market Definition Notice, the FSFE would like to highlight the necessity of adding "Inclusion" as evaluation criteria in the Commission's feedback purpose.
For further information about our position, please see the document attached.
Read full responseResponse to Application of Article 3 (3) (i) and 4 of Directive 2014/53/EU relating to Reconfigurable Radio Systems
4 Mar 2019
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) would like to thank the European Commission for asking for public feedback. Since 2011, the FSFE has been working to protect and enhance freedoms of technology users in Europe. Therefore, we are pleased to provide our expertise for the matter of Article 3(3)(i).
The provided Inception Impact Assessment fails to address some issues that a Delegated Act for Article 3(3)(i) with a broad definition of classes of devices and the proposed regulatory options 2, 3, and 4 would cause:
1. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) will be hampered. Free Software is innovative and efficient because communities, start-ups and mature companies can build upon previous work. It naturally breaks monopolies and fosters a climate of collaboration and fair competition. Options 2, 3 and 4 proposed in the Inception Impact Assessment would void these principles because of 2 reasons:
a. In a Legal Study on the potential ramifications of the Radio Equipment Directive on Free and Open Source Software, its author Dr. Till Jaeger found that "widely used Free and Open Source Software programs as GNU/Linux, GNU C Library and Samba will not be able to be used in products which are falling into the scope of Art. 3(3)(i) RED if the delegated acts of the European Commission do not provide for a limitation. Otherwise, the manufacturer would risk a copyright infringement since any violation of the license conditions of the GPL and LGPL results in an automatic termination of the rights granted". This would affect at least several hundred millions of devices. Please find the full study enclosed in Annex I of the attached document.
b. FOSS allows for modifying and distributing software initially created by a third party. This freedom leads to a variety of solutions for a certain problem and enables users and buyers to select the most suitable product or customise an existing one. With the proposed Options 2, 3 and 4, manufacturers would have to prevent the installation of unauthorised software. It is unrealistic that they will be able to assess all available software for a certain product which in turn hampers the innovative approach that FOSS offers.
2. Fair competition will be harmed. Option 2, 3 and 4 would make manufacturers gatekeepers to accessing software on their devices. This would destroy the foundation of many companies who specialised on creating software for third-party hardware. For example providers of equipment for public WiFi networks or high-security smartphones which offer a more stable, efficient and secure performance than the stock software. With the said options, manufacturers may abuse their new responsibility to fence off their devices against competitors. This would benefit monopolies and harm SMEs who cannot afford costly certifications or building own hardware.
3. Disadvantages for IT security. Opposed to what the Inception Impact Assessment has foreseen as likely social impacts, we expect large disadvantages for security and safety of users and businesses in the digital society and economy with options 2, 3, and 4. Radio equipment like smartphones, routers, or smart home devices are highly sensitive parts of our society. Still, many manufacturers sacrifice security for lower costs. For a broad range of devices, there is better software which protects data and still offers equal or even better functionality. Limiting the amount of software that can be loaded onto radio equipment will not increase, but decrease IT security. This especially applies when manufacturers stop providing updates for their devices.
Because of these and other disadvantages, the FSFE firmly recommends to follow "Option 0, baseline scenario" or "Option 1, industry self-regulation". This will protect Free Software, fair competition and IT security on radio equipment. On the other hand, it will still allow executive bodies to interfere if non-compliant devices are harming applicable radio regulations.
Read full responseMeeting with Keith Sequeira (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)
28 Sept 2016 · Open source software
Meeting with Stephen Quest (Director-General Informatics) and OpenForum Europe AISBL
12 Dec 2014 · IT procurement and open source strategy