“Replacements are always costly – that’s not an argument against open source”
On a scale of 1 to 10: What is the level of sovereignty of the Swiss private sector and public administration?
5 out of 10. Switzerland is a leader in innovation and expertise is available in both sectors. Companies and government agencies are investing heavily in digitalization, but actual control over the systems they use is declining. Dependency on a few global software vendors creates risks that go beyond purely technical considerations. If cost structures are dictated by one side and data access is jeopardized by foreign jurisdictions, this restricts strategic freedom of action.
In recent months, there has been increasing activity in this area. Is this real progress or just statements designed to attract media attention? In reality, how willing are the public and private sectors to invest money to reduce their dependencies?
We receive a lot of inquiries about the procurement and provision of digitally sovereign solutions. Government agencies or publicly funded organizations that handle sensitive data are often among the first to take action. We receive many inquiries from them about open-source alternatives to avoid vendor lock-in. We are noticing additional demand in areas where licensing fees are a major issue. When fees rise, this focuses attention on dependencies and the associated costs. Examples include M365 or Atlassian products. But dependencies aren’t the only factors motivating action. Some organizations are opting for open-source software to boost innovation and allow shared use and further development of the software. In combination with the right structures, this will also promote their digital sovereignty.
When would you be satisfied with digital sovereignty in Switzerland?
Both countries and organizations must decide for themselves whether they want to pursue digital sovereignty and to what extent. My goal is to support everyone who opts for greater digital sovereignty. We should strive to promote the market penetration of digitally sovereign alternatives. This will create competition in areas where it has practically disappeared, such as the workplace software sector. This competition will stop prices rising too high and make sure providers stay innovative. It will benefit organizations striving for digital sovereignty and everyone else. Everyone will have more choices, and that’s crucial.
What are the biggest obstacles to digital sovereignty in Switzerland?
There is still relatively low awareness of digitally sovereign solutions and the innovative strength of Swiss and EU companies. There is little support or assistance for procurers, for both legal and technical aspects. And there is a lack of organizations to coordinate the joint procurement, use, maintenance, and development of open-source software.
What’s happening in other countries? How does Switzerland compare internationally?
Schleswig-Holstein has now successfully made the move to open source, proving to many public organizations that these projects can be both successful and cost-effective. In 2026, the state will save 15 million Swiss francs in licensing fees, while incurring 9 million Swiss francs in costs for additional migrations and further development. Within the EU, stakeholders are already having more discussions about digital sovereignty and practical initiatives are underway. For jurisdictional sovereignty, on the one hand, the aim is to increase procurement from European companies that are not subject to extraterritorial legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, some areas of society are focusing on technological sovereignty, which they believe can be achieved by promoting open-source software and opensource cloud stacks. This has led to developments such as the Sovereign Cloud Stack (SCS), a standardized, sovereign open-source cloud and container platform. One particularly noteworthy initiative set up to address the lack of coordination in opensource offerings and procurement is the Center for Digital Sovereignty (ZenDis) in Germany. The Interministerial Directorate for Digital Affairs (DINUM) performs a similar role in France. These bodies are working together and the collaboration is now expanding to other countries. In Germany, the IT Planning Council issued new model contracts for IT procurement in March. The supplementary contract terms for IT services have been amended to allow procurers to purchase open-source software in a legally compliant manner in future. Previously, these contract templates were designed exclusively for proprietary software. In Switzerland, the Federal Chancellery’s conceptual work and OSS tools deserve special mention, as does its BOSS project focusing on digitally sovereign workplace software. However, there is still room for improvement in Swiss initiatives. To offer support, we are setting up the SDS Center – Sovereign Digital Switzerland. A letter of intent on collaboration with ZenDis already exists, a move very much welcomed by a Swiss contact point in view of the many inquiries it already receives from Switzerland.
“We should strive to promote the market penetration of digitally sovereign alternatives. This will create competition in areas where it has practically disappeared, stop prices rising too high, and make sure providers stay innovative.”– Pascal Stöckli
The current discussion centers on dependency on the United States. How sensible is it to depend on European providers for cloud or software solutions? Political conditions can change quickly and it could be risky to rely too heavily on European partners. A few years ago, for example, Peer Steinbrück wanted to apply pressure to step up Swiss involvement in the fight against tax evasion. Ultimately, you can’t rely entirely on any one country.
In terms of legal aspects, and therefore jurisdictional sovereignty, we recommend looking at digital sovereignty from a European perspective. The European market is large enough for scalable solutions and includes many established providers that are not subject to extraterritorial legal jurisdiction. However, digital sovereignty should not be viewed solely in territorial terms. Organizations that choose to avoid vendor lockin in favor of technological independence will have more flexibility in their responses to company-specific and geographic developments. They can call on other service providers at any time to operate and further develop their open, vendor-neutral software and cloud stacks, without having to migrate or jeopardize day-to-day operations.
In reality, the picture is sobering: More and more government agencies are adopting Microsoft 365. Why is it that so many organizations recognize the risk but still stick to the status quo?
There was a lack of established, digitally sovereign suites such as openDesk, the open-source workplace software from the German company ZenDis. These suites became possible and were promoted only when the first public organizations sought to purchase them. Either because they cannot afford extraterritorial legal recourse or due to considerations such as costs, dependencies, and innovation potential.
openDesk has been available to Swiss government agencies since November 2025. How much interest is there?
There is a lot of interest. But I need to put this into perspective. Most large government agencies and institutions don’t acquire this overnight. They start with a proof of concept and then decide whether to proceed. Several Swiss companies now offer this service. As soon as we are able to support them with a funded SDS center, we will collect and share this data.
What role does the SDS network play when adopting open source in general and openDesk in particular?
The SDS network acts as a hub for ideas and a cross-sector round table for organizations wishing to discuss this digital sovereignty and explore potential projects. A funded Open Source Program Office (OSPO) is needed to finance and implement projects, coordinate open-source solutions, and support procurers. That is why we are setting up the SDS center, which will initially focus on four work streams: financing and procuring open-source software; openDesk and peripheral systems; the Open Cloud Stack, and open-source AI. The SDS center will initially be responsible for coordinating participants, acting as an intermediary between federal levels and European initiatives, and carrying out commissioned work.
Where are the main obstacles at the moment to introducing open source in the public sector? Are there any typical mistakes organizations make during the transition?
One common mistake is failing to plan for or underestimating the long-term financial requirements for maintenance, support, and further development.
The argument against open source solutions such as openDesk is that replacement is an expensive step involving major risks. But at some point, the investment costs are recovered. Can you calculate when openDesk will start to pay for itself?
This is an issue in any software project and openDesk is no exception. Ultimately, we need to draw up a cost-benefit analysis, including amortization of investment costs through savings on licensing fees. It should also consider the risk of future increases in licensing costs due to dependence on monopoly prices. Positive factors are also often overlooked, such as the opportunities for collaboration and innovation created by open-source software and standards. For example, dozens of services could be transferred from other government agencies or procured jointly and further developed. This offers enormous potential.
Further development could, however, also be an argument against open source. In SaaS models, maintenance, further development, and security are included in the license fees. With OS solutions, you are responsible for these areas yourself. How can these scenarios be costed effectively?
You can start with the design of the proposal. Instead of license fees, you could offer subscriptions to finance the activities mentioned. Procurers would then be independent from the manufacturer but still benefit from and pay for the services provided. Together with the SDS center, we will drive service offerings that allow procurers to choose between on-premises solutions or sovereign SaaS and cloud services.
“Government agencies or publicly funded organizations that handle sensitive data are often among the first to take action. We receive many inquiries from them about open-source alternatives.”– Pascal Stöckli
Finally, for personal purposes, do you use M365 or openDesk?
Both. I want to see for myself what changes prospective customers can expect. One great discovery is that I can combine open- Desk with digitally sovereign AI. This allows me to process sensitive data more efficiently than in M365.
ti&m Special “Digital Sovereignty”