At functional parity, prefer bricks under European or multi-vendor neutral governance in the offers we put forward#
What this is, concretely#
This commitment consists of introducing, in the technical composition of the offers you put forward to your European clients, a preference for bricks under European governance or under a neutral multi-vendor foundation — at functional parity with foreign single-vendor alternatives. The preference applies both to the components integrated into your product (libraries, frameworks, embedded databases) and to the options offered in your catalogue (recommended hosting providers, connected third-party services, packaged integrations).
The phrase “at functional parity” is central. It preserves your ability to recommend a foreign brick when the technical trade-off clearly justifies it — for example, because the European alternative does not cover an essential feature, or because it is not yet mature enough. It asks you not to make the choice out of habit or by default when the trade-off is open.
The commitment requires that this preference be made readable in your catalogue, your commercial documentation, and your recommendations. The client must be able to understand why you propose this or that hosting provider, this or that embedded database, this or that complementary solution.
Why this commitment matters#
Thesis 12 of the manifesto targets European providers specifically: “as long as European providers position themselves as distributors of bricks under foreign governance, they deprive sovereign alternatives of the clients, the capital, and the critical mass that would let them exist.” This thesis is one of the most structuring in the manifesto because it points to a particular responsibility carried by European actors in the perpetuation of dependencies.
When a French publisher proposes by default a deployment on AWS, recommends Microsoft 365 for collaboration, and embeds single-vendor libraries without a tested alternative, it takes part in the American concentration of the chain — even when its own code is entirely French. Conversely, when the same publisher proposes by default hosting at OVHcloud, Outscale, or Infomaniak, recommends Nextcloud or Collabora, and prefers PostgreSQL or Valkey at parity, it becomes a node propagating sovereignty rather than its opposite.
The commitment complements pub-008-european-host-default (offering a European host as default) and pub-006-publish-component-jurisdiction-list (publishing the list of components with their jurisdiction). Together, these commitments make the stated preference visible and operational.
A concrete example#
A French integrator specialising in the digital transformation of industrial SMEs, with 60 consultants, takes this commitment in June 2026. Technical leadership formalises an internal three-tier charter. Preferred tier (recommended by default): European hosting providers (OVHcloud, Scaleway, Infomaniak), PostgreSQL and MariaDB databases (noting MariaDB’s exit from the European quadrant since the K1 Investment Management acquisition in September 2024), Valkey or KeyDB for cache, OpenTofu for IaC, OpenBao for secrets management, Nextcloud + Collabora for collaboration, Element/Matrix for messaging. Acceptable with justification: open source single-vendor bricks under stable licensing. Derogation tier: US proprietary bricks, to be justified by a functional need not covered by alternatives.
The charter is annexed to standard commercial proposals. Over the following twelve months, the integrator delivers 14 projects; of these 14, 11 use the European host by default, 9 include OpenTofu, 7 include Nextcloud. For the three projects that stayed on AWS, the client justification is documented (integration with an existing IT system already on AWS). The integrator publishes in April 2027 a feedback report detailing the trajectory and the lessons learnt.
Anti-pattern to avoid#
A charter that stays internal without being translated into commercial proposals and the catalogue does not fulfil the commitment. A rhetorical formulation without operational tiers (“we pay particular attention to the sovereignty of our recommendations”) does not change default behaviour. A modest but effective charter beats an ambitious declaration without application.
Success indicators#
You can reasonably consider this commitment fulfilled if an explicit internal charter formalises the preference, if it is applied in your commercial proposals with documented traceability, if your catalogue or product pages make the preference for European or neutral-foundation bricks readable, and if you can cite several cases where the preference actually steered the technical decision.
→ Documented in the dossier#
JSON schema category: preference. Default horizon: no defined horizon (lasting commitment). Applicable to: businesses.