Give preference to bricks under European or multi-vendor neutral governance#
What this is, concretely#
This commitment consists of introducing, in your technology choices, a preference criterion for bricks whose governance is European (foundation, association, or European company with distributed governance) or for neutral multi-vendor foundations (typically Linux Foundation, CNCF, Apache Software Foundation, Eclipse Foundation), at functional parity with a foreign single-vendor alternative. The phrase “at functional parity” is central: the commitment does not ask you to sacrifice functionality or technical quality, it asks you to arbitrate in favour of sovereignty when the technical trade-off leaves several options on the table.
The commitment has no defined horizon because it applies continuously to all your future technology choices, not to a one-off project. It stands as a guiding principle, not as a deliverable.
Why this commitment matters#
Many organisations choose their technologies out of habit, network effect, or by default — without the choice being informed by an analysis of governance. The result is cumulative: at every decision, the US or single-vendor ecosystem grows, the European or multi-vendor neutral ecosystem withers. The manifesto articulates this mechanism in thesis 12: the critical mass that would let alternatives prosper is taken from them by default.
Conversely, a systematic preference — even a modest one — changes the picture. If you choose Valkey over Redis on a new project, PostgreSQL over MongoDB for a new service, OpenTofu over Terraform for your infrastructure as code, you feed an ecosystem that structurally needs it. Thesis 11 of the manifesto recalls it: “a serious European digital sovereignty policy is recognised by its investment in foundations, maintainers, and distribution infrastructures.”
The commitment complements the audit (user-001) and documentation (user-005) approaches well: it makes operational what the audit has made visible. Without an active preference, the audit becomes an observation without follow-up. With an active preference, it becomes a guide for steering choices as they come.
A concrete example#
A French SME of 87 employees in business-software publishing takes this commitment in June 2026. Technical leadership formalises an internal three-tier preference grid: tier 1 (strong preference), European governance or neutral multi-vendor foundation with a mature ecosystem; tier 2 (acceptable), open source single-vendor with a stable licence history and an active fork alternative; tier 3 (to be justified), single-vendor with a recent licence flip or a captive ecosystem. The grid is not public but it is integrated into the architecture documentation and discussed at every quarterly technical review.
Over the twelve months following the commitment, the SME makes three structuring decisions. For a new cache service, it chooses Valkey on the basis of a documented comparison with Redis BSL/SSPL. For its infrastructure as code, it gradually migrates from Terraform to OpenTofu on new modules. For a search-engine project on a new product, it evaluates PostgreSQL with its full-text search extension before considering Elasticsearch or OpenSearch; the need turns out to be coverable by PostgreSQL, and the decision is taken on that path. No abrupt migration is forced on the existing stack — the grid applies to new decisions, which makes the commitment operationally tenable.
Anti-pattern to avoid#
A formulation along the lines of “we seek to prefer European solutions where possible” without an operational grid or mention in decision processes is a rhetorical preference without real effect. Symmetrically, a rigid preference that ignores technical constraints (“we forbid any US brick”) is neither tenable nor credible. The strength of the commitment lies in its formulation at functional parity: neither dogmatism, nor pious wish.
Success indicators#
You can reasonably consider this commitment fulfilled if your recent technical decisions now explicitly include the governance criterion, if you can cite at least one decision where this criterion shifted the choice towards a European or neutral-foundation alternative, and if your technical teams are able to explain the grid in a decision review. Internal publication of a technical charter formalising the preference strengthens the value of the commitment.
→ Documented in the dossier#
JSON schema category: preference. Default horizon: no defined horizon (lasting commitment). Applicable to: businesses, public administrations, associations, foundations, research institutions.