Summary Digital Sovereignty & Technology Independence Advocates
This article advocates for government digital sovereignty through reporting on Denmark's shift from Microsoft to open-source software as a strategy for reducing dependence on U.S. technology providers and managing costs. The content supports freedom of expression, information access, and technological self-determination while implicitly addressing data protection and privacy concerns. However, the underlying site structure undermines privacy rights through undisclosed tracking mechanisms that contradict the privacy principles discussed editorially.
I work in software development for Danish hospitals, and some regions already used OpenOffice, now libre office, for .. well over 15 years. At least in parts.
We integrate with an API into libreoffice, and it more or less did not change in well over a decade. But sometimes libreoffice crashes and you can't figure out why. There are just no logs. It feels like a black box at times.
But I don't think they will be switching away from Teams as quickly. Will be interesting for sure.
And meanwhile the exact same agency spits out government Android apps that use Play Integrity so citizens cannot ditch Google for GrapheneOS. This is symbolism, the minister does not actually care about digital sovereignty for the citizens.
A lot of good behind this idea if nothing else than to keep Microsoft honest. The Azureware push is nauseating and such a transparent attempt to lock in its monopoly against disruptors. We’re hoping Tritium[1] can provide a free or commercial alternative for legal teams soon.
All that said, it’s easy to underestimate the quality of Microsoft’s office products. They handle millions of edge cases, accessibility, i18n. They are performant and in a lot of cases extended through long-term add ins.
Even Google hasn’t achieved real parity.
It’s Microsoft’s race to lose, but my bet is they’re too distracted by AI to even noticed those coming for them.
I think a move to Open Source would be great in Europe, but only if the governments using the technologies are actively funding their development.
This doesn't just mean once-off grants, or a bit of cash donated here and there. I would like to see per-user per-year contributions to the organisations that develop these tools on-par with the current spend going towards Microsoft Cloud products.
It can be better than Microsoft, but you need to fund it to be better than Microsoft.
That's great, but it's always just one agency, or one very local bit of government. If we (Europeans) really mean it - and we should - the top level of government just needs to make the declaration: as of X, all Microsoft licenses will be terminated. No exceptions. Adapt or die.
According to the CLOUD act, the US government can demand access to data from US companies, regardless of where that data is stored. That must be unacceptable to any sovereign government. I genuinely do not understand why other countries put up with this.
I do like this news, but I wonder why they choose LibreOffice. It's the most widely known MS alternative, but things like OnlyOffice [0] and Nextcloud Office [1] (which is based on Collabora Online [2], which in turn is based on LibreOffice) offer much more compelling collaborative features, imho. Just plain office (like it's 1997) is quite a step back, no?
Especially OnlyOffice looks extremely similar to MS Office, I have it on all our Linux laptops at home so the kids don't feel much difference between home and school envs. I think document interoperability (as in: Looks similar) is also better.
I think an important point in this discussion is that adopting FOSS requires a level of institutional openness that is not typical of governments in general. It’s not just a question of switching vendors; it’s about embracing transparency, auditability, and shared ownership of public infrastructure. The question is: are governments fully aware of what FOSS adoption actually implies?
Brazil is an interesting case. On paper, we have a strong legal mandate. Under Art. 16 of Lei 14.063/2020[0], information and communication systems developed exclusively by public bodies must be governed by an open-source license, allowing use, copying, modification, and distribution without restriction by other public entities.
However, implementation tells a different story. Take PIX, the instant payment system developed by the Brazilian Central Bank. As of today, only the API is open. The core system code remains unpublished[1]. If the system was developed exclusively by the public administration, this seems difficult to reconcile with the letter - and certainly the spirit - of the law.
So the issue is not only whether governments should reduce vendor lock-in. It’s whether they are prepared to follow through on what real openness demands once they commit to it.
Most platforms like Nextcloud focus on file storage, email, documents and video conference but don't do anything similar to the identity management, provisioning, policies and SSO that Office 365 provides.
A national government is large enough to run their own Keycloak instance but a regional branch of government would be better off with having a SaaS for that.
It would be great if the EU would subsidize a full alternative to Microsoft 365 and give every government worker in every EU country an account to that. Just grab a random laptop from the shelf, install EUnionOS, log-in to EUnionCloud and have all the required apps for their work install themselves, set all the rights correctly, mail works automatically, automatic access to the correct files. Full disk encryption, theft protection etcetera.
Europe’s reading the room and building exits. They’re also cutting dependence on Visa/Mastercard because tying your payment rails to a declining, unstable empire is a bad long-term bet. Wero, the digital euro, local infrastructure, all of it points to the same thing: financial sovereignty matters when America looks more like a geopolitical liability.
my read is that 2026 to 2027 is basically Europe saying, "we should probably stop wiring the house through a burning building." Payments, cloud, office software, data infrastructure, all of it.
so Denmark moving to cut Microsoft dependence in the name of digital independence is basically the same story. When the US starts looking less like stable infrastructure and more like a chaotic landlord, everyone starts building their own exits.
I know someone that works in the central government of an EU country and have persuaded her to talk to the IT department in the ministry where she works to try to move away from Microsoft products. The short answer: "It's not possible for us to move away from Microsoft". And it's not that they don't want to, but they have extremely low IT resources + the employees are very reluctant to make any change. Sometimes they introduce a new program, or update an older one and there's massive whining in the entire ministry. These public employees should really try to adapt more and understand that digital environments have become crucial for independence, privacy and self-reliance.
Of all the Microsoft products, Excel is going to be the hardest to replace. Firstly, it's critical in many organisations. We all know you shouldn't run your business on a spreadsheet, but everyone does. Just a tiny difference in how data is handled, an unsupported macro, a missing formula...the whole deck of cards collapses.
Secondly, while people only use 20% of its features, everyone uses a different 20%.
Its understated, but this kind move is now systemic in the EU due to the sanctioning of ICC & EU officials and random people who hurt the presidents feelings requiring Microsoft to remotely kill access to resources tied to Microsoft Accounts.
Without rules of law its literally irresponsible for EU to have this kind of heavy dependency on US corporations.
However you like it or not banning just one company is not a recipe for success. IMO the issue is in the procurement and how these tenders are worded. For instance, if the requirement is data residency backed by private keys and conf compute then put it in writing. The idea that some other vendor will come in and solve this problem without such a requirement upfront will not hold for long.
By and large MS problem is that our world gets fragmented and you need to have products that adapt, eg great firewall in China, strict data residency in Europe. It is difficult to achieve that without segmenting your products as well.
There are a number of US states that have moved off Microsoft (mostly to G-Suite) and a number more that are considering it. And yes it won't be EVERYone (you can pry excel out of accountants cold dead hands) or everyTHING (obviously mainly Windows) but it's at least a blow against the pricing and quality issues from MSFT
The problem isn't plain MS Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint). The more nefarious set of issues is around domain-specific software that is only compatible with Microsoft platforms and software.
For example, Veeva Vault is the industry standard content (and content workflow) platform for life sciences. It's a heavy, somewhat unpleasant platform similar to a Workday or ServiceNow, but it's ingrained and it compliant with all life sci regulatory bodies' regulations. It requires customers use SharePoint and Office under the hood.
Things like that can't just be ripped out and replaced because there are no FOSS options.
Denmark was literally the US lapdog for such a long time, open to provide access and info. Denmark was the first to follow US into Iraq, while the rest of Scandinavia was much more skeptical.
Guess just bad luck with Greenland turning them the complete opposite direction, since I was certain that Denmark would be the one of the last to go against US in any way.
I really wish there was a EU alternative to Cloudflare. Their featureset and DX is the best in the industry IMO but their data sovereignty features are sadly not really good enough for most EU enterprises we talk to.
The fact they’re an American company is unfortunately the dealbraker. We could store data outside of CF network but that defeats the point of the one stop shop.
I don't think so. It's more complicated than that. The state is not a monolith. Different heads are doing different things and it's a enormous bureaucracy. The divisions pumping out Android will eventually catch up to what's going on and the vulnerability they're exposing themselves to. These things take time. It doesn't all happen at once. People (who are not very technical, barely knowing what a computer is) need to understand what's going on and that can take a while. Let's just hope they figure it out before it matters.
I think it has more to do with ignorance. Device attestation is not trivial to adopt while both Apple and Google promise you a very simple abstraction. So it takes being informed and having leverage in the process to be able to make a difference.
For me the blame is squarely on the technical “experts” who are behind the architecture and implementation of such apps.
Not will, they already do. My day job big corp hasn’t renewed a single US contract or license this year. We’re also in the process of ditching Office 365. Even Azure is no longer allowed for new deployments
I think if we're to move to away from these US products to open source ones, then governments should also provide resources or funding to develop them using the licensing fees they save. Is the Danish government contributing back to libreoffice?
> It can be better than Microsoft, but you need to fund it to be better than Microsoft.
Lol no. Microsoft profits more than the value they provide, not exactly we should want to copy. We need to prevent hypercapitalism from reaching us in Europe, not make it worse, as we now seen exactly what it does to countries when you let it grow unfettered.
But I agree in general, governments and companies that use FOSS should donate back either engineering-time or money, but no need to do complicated "per-user per-year contributions", give them a sum per year, enough to fund the core developers at least and ideally to hire new ones, otherwise hire engineers and let them full-time contribute back.
Luckily, at least in Europe, this is exactly what we're seeing now. The governments who are looking into FOSS are all thinking about how to help fund it, no one seem to be thinking "How can we do this for free?" which is nice thing to see.
It is probably unintentional. I work and worked in such projects (in The Netherlands), and the process is -rightfully- chaotic.
Governments typically don't have a central single team that builds all their android apps. They usually write a tender with loads of requirements and app-agencies will then build it. Or freelancers. Or volunteer teams. Or all of that. So there's no central team governed by one minister who can dictate what should happen today. There's hundreds of companies, teams, freelancers, interims, running around trying to make deadlines
Between writing a spec and the delivered app, there's chasms: could be a year between the specs are written and the first app pushed onto a phone. In a (trump)year a lot can change. But also between how specs are requirements or wishes in real life. "No user data may ever reach a google server" (actual specs are far vaguer and broader) may sound good, but will conflict directly with "user must receive push notifications of Foo and Bar". Or "passport NFC data must be attested for login", requiring a non-rooted, android, signed-by-google hardware attestation thingymajick.
So no, this is not malice. Nor incompetence. This is a sad reality, where we've allowed the monopoly to dictate what we, and users, expect, and to have that monopoly be the only option to provide those expectations.
The “that’s nice but Denmark is small” comment is getting tiresome. Whether the country had 6 million or 60 million the bureaucracy is the same. It’s not about the size or the economics, it’s about the message.
It won’t be long until the rest of the public sectors follow along. There has already been plenty of consideration and desire to follow through. What’s holding them back typically is not the desire to stay with Microsoft et. al., but the investment needed to make the switch away from a live system.
OnlyOffice, Nextcloud OPffice, Collabora might all have free offerings to a degree, but you'll end up at the mercy of the companies behind those tools and OnlyOffice comes with Enterprise offering that does also cost money.
Costing money isn't necessarily bad, but it's also hard to beat free & libre.
I am often amused at how people outside the US don't like the current US government yet if it wasn't for the current US government the whole world would have been sleep walking into Office 365 and Teams. I don't hold any political opinion but do like that we are now going to have alternatives and true competition.
OnlyOffice had some controversy around being owned and operated by a Russian company through shell companies. They might even fall under EU sanctions. There is an open German information request to the government that was never answered.
Wether those connections are true or not I can't say, but I do know people that dropped OnlyOffice in their evaluations for this reason.
I checked it, but at $149 per year for the home server (and don't forget to click in the 'information' button on the 'Lifetime' License Duration option), there seems to be a bit of a premium on that MS styling, considering the functionality in competing F/OSS suites.
> sometimes libreoffice crashes and you can't figure out why
> why libreoffice stopped publishing artefacts to mvn repo
I think both questions would be a perfect fit for the paid support bugtracker of LibreOffice maintainers. Hopefully paid by some hospital funds that are not spent on MS Office licenses.
I am Danish, working with IT in the private sector, but with regular contact to the public sector.
I can assure you that there is plenty of other agencies, ministries, municipalities, private companies etc. in both Denmark and other European countries looking into switching to non-American software.
"Data sovereignty" is now an important parameter when chosing supplier. Everybody asks about it it. Everybody plans around it.
Although the weaning off will take many years, and although European companies and governments will probably never be entirely without American software, and why should they, the American dominance will disappear, little by little. For better or worse, the American Century is coming to an end, also in IT.
> They’re also cutting dependence on Visa/Mastercard because tying your payment rails to a declining, unstable empire is a bad long-term be
Digital euro push is beyond the current US administration if that’s what you are hinting at. The trigger was Big Tech payments (Facebook Libra) and the rise of BTC.
Switching from Word/Excel to LibreOffice is comparably easy. A lot of other Microsoft Products are much harder to get rid of.
I've never seen a European corporation that doesn't do user management with ActiveDirectory. Some still have it on their own Windows servers, but most browser based applications still go through Entra (Azure Cloud based AD). Just shut off their Entra/AAD and most of their software is blocked because nobody can log in.
Many governments have their own MSPs (managed service provider) who could host any open source software, just as they are likely in charge right now of many Microsoft admin tasks. And if the government doesn't have one but a branch office wants a regional branch wants a keycloak instance they can always get an MSP for that
I do like your vision of a unified full replacement version. But even just gathering everyone's requirements for that seems like a near impossible task that would take years. And the end result would almost certainly end in a mess that's too restrictive for some, unusuably unsecure for others, and have a set of apps that will always be slightly wrong and difficult to change. These huge top-down solutions rarely work well
You can always pick other components for those things. Many enterprises do this also because the included parts in M365 are usually pretty mediocre compared to AAA solutions that specialise in that part. For example dedicated MDMs are better than Intune. Dedicated IDPs are better than Entra AD. Dropbox is better than OneDrive, slack is way better than teams (to be fair, anything is better than teams :) )
The big benefit of the MS package is that you get it all for one price. And that it's integrated so you have less configuration. But they're not deal-breakers. That's why parties like Okta and MobileIron still exist. Airwatch was also really good but VMware screwed them up like they screw everything up.
But M365 is not the only game out there. Unless you're limiting yourself to wanting exactly what M365 is. Then it's only that yes.
SUSE and its children in openSUSE are freaking awesome. The tumbleweed release is the most stable rolling release ever, they have slowroll if you want something even more stable, and leap for basically a free version of SLE. Genuinely surprised that SLES hasn't overtaken redhat
I would replace "funding" with at minimum "contributing", because there are people who would think having a government actively dipping their toes in a product gives them right over actively piloting the direction of that product.
I've already seen online discussions of something similar happening when Valve announced that they're actively contributing to Arch Linux and KDE. But then, it's Valve.
LibreOffice release builds should offer to send a crash report. Ideally, you should then create a bug report referencing the crash report. Besides that, you can do your own build with debug symbols and get backtraces or debug the program.
At The Document Foundation we are always interested in helping deployments. It is also nice to do writeups for our blog. Let me know, if your organisation needs help: [email protected]
High A:free_expression P:journalism C:government_decisions
Editorial
+0.60
SETL
+0.42
Article demonstrates free expression through journalistic reporting on government technology decisions. Includes byline (Daryna Antoniuk), publication date, source attribution (Politiken), and direct quotes from decision-makers. Reports on controversial policy without censorship.
FW Ratio: 63%
Observable Facts
Article includes clear byline: 'Daryna Antoniuk June 13th, 2025'
Content attributes information to sources: 'In an interview with the local newspaper Politiken'
Article includes direct quotes from Danish Minister Caroline Stage Olsen.
Publication openly reports on tensions with U.S. and moves away from U.S. technology.
Author bio states: 'Daryna Antoniuk is a reporter for Recorded Future News based in Ukraine. She writes about cybersecurity startups, cyberattacks in Eastern Europe and the state of the cyberwar between Ukraine and Russia.'
Inferences
Journalistic attribution and sourcing demonstrate commitment to free expression through accountable reporting.
U.S. company publishing criticism of U.S. technology dominance indicates editorial independence.
Clear authorship and sourcing support transparency of expression.
Medium A:freedom_of_movement F:digital_sovereignty
Editorial
+0.55
SETL
+0.37
Article discusses movement between technology platforms and systems as a form of freedom—moving from Microsoft to open-source represents freedom to choose technology ecosystem.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article describes the transition as a choice to move away from a dominant vendor toward alternatives.
Content is accessible globally without geographic blocking or restrictions.
Inferences
The framing of technology choice as 'digital sovereignty' relates to freedom of movement and autonomy.
Global accessibility of the news content supports freedom of movement to information.
Article reports on collective government decisions and municipal coordination toward shared technology goals, demonstrating freedom of assembly around policy positions.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article describes multiple municipalities (Copenhagen, Aarhus) making coordinated decisions: 'The ministry's decision follows similar moves by Denmark's two largest municipalities, Copenhagen and Aarhus.'
Content reports on broader European trend: 'The shift comes amid a wider European trend toward digital independence.'
Article mentions Schleswig-Holstein, Germany making similar moves, showing cross-border coordination.
Inferences
Editorial coverage of coordinated government action supports freedom of assembly and collective decision-making.
Reporting on cross-border trend supports peaceful assembly around shared technology values.
Article reports on government establishing social order through technology policy decisions affecting institutional framework and public digital infrastructure.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article describes government ministry and municipal decisions establishing technology policy framework.
Content reports on deliberate government decisions: 'Danish Minister for Digitalisation Caroline Stage Olsen confirmed that over half of the ministry's staff will switch from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice.'
Article mentions broader European framework: 'amid a wider European trend toward digital independence.'
Inferences
Government technology decisions establish social order framework for digital infrastructure.
Reporting on cross-national coordination supports understanding of international governance frameworks.
Medium A:freedom_of_thought F:independence_framing
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.39
Article frames technology choice as expression of independent thought and governance philosophy—government agency choosing systems that align with values of digital independence.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article presents government's reasoning for technology transition based on strategic thinking about digital independence.
Content includes diverse perspectives: ministry rationale, municipal decisions, and comparison with European trends.
Inferences
Editorial presentation of government decision-making supports freedom of thought about technology governance.
News publication on policy diversity supports pluralism of technological thought.
High A:culture_and_science P:open_source F:digital_commons
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
+0.27
Article promotes open-source software (LibreOffice) as alternative to proprietary systems, supporting cultural commons, scientific transparency, and shared intellectual resources.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article describes LibreOffice as developed by The Document Foundation, a 'Berlin-based non-profit organization' supporting open-source culture.
Content emphasizes LibreOffice availability across platforms: 'available for Windows, macOS, and is the default office suite on many Linux systems.'
Page includes schema.org markup for article structure and organization information, supporting semantic web participation.
Article mentions Schleswig-Holstein's commitment to digital sovereignty supporting 'independent, sustainable, secure' digital infrastructure.
Inferences
Open-source software models support cultural commons and shared intellectual property.
Semantic markup supports participation in shared technical standards and information structures.
European digital sovereignty framing aligns with cultural self-determination and scientific independence.
Medium A:digital_sovereignty F:independence_framing P:user_tracking
Editorial
+0.45
SETL
+0.40
Article frames government shift away from U.S. technology as a dignity and autonomy issue, consistent with preamble's emphasis on freedom from subjugation and self-determination.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article quotes Danish Minister saying ministry staff will switch to LibreOffice and open-source solutions.
Content frames the shift as motivated by 'digital sovereignty' and reducing dependence on U.S. tech firms.
Page includes Google Tag Manager, Matomo, and Facebook Pixel tracking code visible in source.
Inferences
The editorial framing aligns with UDHR's recognition of human dignity and self-determination through technological autonomy.
The undisclosed tracking implementation contradicts the preamble's promise of human dignity and individual agency.
Article reports on government participation in technology policy decisions, including statements from Minister and municipal leaders, supporting democratic participation in governance.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article quotes Danish Minister for Digitalisation Caroline Stage Olsen.
Content includes statements from Copenhagen audit committee chair Henrik Appel Espersen.
Article reports on government agency decisions affecting digital infrastructure.
Inferences
Reporting on government decision-making supports public participation in understanding technology governance.
Attribution to government officials supports transparency in political participation.
Article discusses LibreOffice as educational and professional tool, supporting access to technology literacy and skills.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article explains LibreOffice features: 'The suite includes tools for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, vector graphics, databases, and formula editing.'
Content educates readers about open-source alternatives and their capabilities.
Inferences
Explaining technology tools supports public education about digital alternatives.
Free access to this information democratizes knowledge about software options.
Article discusses government modernization and cost savings through technology decisions, which support social provision and public resource management.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'The move would also help the ministry avoid the expense of managing outdated Windows 10 systems, which will lose official support in October.'
Medium A:standard_of_living F:digital_infrastructure
Editorial
+0.35
SETL
+0.23
Article discusses technology infrastructure decisions that support government efficiency and reduce public spending, relating to standard of living and public services.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article mentions cost savings: 'avoid the expense of managing outdated Windows 10 systems.'
Content discusses technology decisions affecting public sector operations and citizen services.
Inferences
Technology infrastructure decisions directly impact standard of living through government service delivery.
Cost efficiency supports broader public resource allocation to other services.
Article does not explicitly address discrimination, though the discussion of reducing dependence on dominant vendors could be read as addressing asymmetric power relations.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article mentions Microsoft's 'strong grip on the market' as a concern.
Content references market dominance and cost concerns as motivations for the switch.
Inferences
Discussion of market dominance and vendor lock-in implicitly addresses inequality in technology access and choice.
Article mentions data protection concerns as motivation for reducing reliance on U.S. technology, supporting privacy principles.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article text states: 'tensions between the U.S. and Denmark during Donald Trump's presidency, which sparked debate about data protection and reducing reliance on foreign technology.'
Page source contains Google Tag Manager (GTM-PVJ5W86), Matomo analytics (recordedfuture.matomo.cloud), and Facebook Pixel (781647205981775) implementations.
No cookie consent banner or opt-out mechanism is visible in provided page content.
Inferences
Editorial framing supports privacy and data protection as human rights concerns.
Structural tracking implementation without disclosed consent contradicts the privacy protections discussed editorially.
High A:culture_and_science P:open_source F:digital_commons
Structural
+0.35
Context Modifier
+0.25
SETL
+0.27
Site uses semantic HTML markup (schema.org) and basic accessibility features supporting technical accessibility. Free access to information supports cultural participation.
High A:free_expression P:journalism C:government_decisions
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
+0.20
SETL
+0.42
Site is freely accessible news publication providing information about government decisions. Publication by U.S. company reporting on criticism of U.S. technology companies shows editorial freedom.
Site implements extensive third-party tracking (Google Tag Manager, Matomo, Facebook Pixel) without visible user consent mechanisms or privacy controls, contradicting privacy protections.
Article emphasizes tensions with Washington and data protection concerns as drivers of policy: 'tensions between the U.S. and Denmark during Donald Trump's presidency, which sparked debate about data protection and reducing reliance on foreign technology.'
bandwagon
Article presents multiple similar government actions as part of broader trend to establish legitimacy: 'The shift comes amid a wider European trend toward digital independence' and mentions Copenhagen, Aarhus, and Schleswig-Holstein examples.