France Endorses UN Open Source Principles

Scope of the UN Principles

• Commenters note the UN “open source principles” are high-level, intent-focused guidelines rather than binding policy or precise definitions.
• Some view them as mostly symbolic unless tied to procurement rules, interoperability requirements, or funding for maintenance.

France’s Open Source Reality: Progress vs. Cynicism

• Multiple posts describe strong French digital public services: unified login (FranceConnect), online taxes, fines, health, IDs, address changes, etc., often backed by free software and open data.
• Others counter with bad experiences (education portals, FranceConnect limitations, enterprise tax UI, digital ID app not open source, encryption export bureaucracy), and argue most money still flows to Microsoft/US cloud.
• Recent Microsoft “open bar” contracts for education and Office 365 moves are cited as evidence that practice lags rhetoric; defenders say backlash itself shows norms have shifted and that migrating huge estates takes many years.
• Examples of concrete projects: LibreOffice on hundreds of thousands of gov desktops, the open “Suite numérique,” Renater collaboration tools, open data like real-estate (DVF) and the Référentiel National des Bâtiments with wiki-style corrections.

UN / Government Role in Open Source

• Some ask why the UN should be involved at all; others answer: governance, standard-setting, and using its large IT budget to encourage open, interoperable systems.
• A parallel debate asks what counts as a “public utility” in the US and whether similar principles could realistically take hold there.

Office Suites and Usability

• There’s sharp disagreement on LibreOffice: some call it unusable with poor UI and contributor-hostile processes; others argue that mandated/default tools are often disliked but still workable, and that Office 365 is far from flawless.
• Collaboration features (cloud editing and sharing) are seen as the main reason MS Office remains entrenched.

AI, LLMs, and Definitions of “Open”

• Commenters wonder whether the UN principles extend to AI models and how “open source” will be defined there.
• Meta’s Llama licenses are criticized for usage restrictions; French comparison tools correctly avoid calling them open source but are accused of downplaying some limits.
• OSI’s AI definition and initiatives like Eleven Freedoms are discussed; some prefer stricter community standards (e.g., Debian’s ML policy) over OSI’s approach.

Regulation, Liability, and Institutional Capture

• A long subthread fears that state-defined “open source” plus regimes like the EU Cyber Resilience Act could overburden small commercial FOSS vendors while leaving only large corporations able to monetize open code.
• Others respond that voluntary developers are explicitly exempted, that product liability is normal in other sectors, and that engaging early with legislation can correct the worst proposals.
• Broader worry: “open source” as a label is being diluted and co‑opted by large foundations, corporations, and intergovernmental bodies, while underfunded grassroots efforts (e.g., alternative phone OSes) struggle.

Transparency, Democracy, and Voting

• Several argue that open-source government software will increasingly distinguish democracies from authoritarian systems, given how much power runs on code.
• Others stress that even with open code, trust problems remain (compilers, hardware, deployment), and many advocate sticking with paper ballots plus human observers for elections.

Tools and Ecosystem Notes

• UN use of CryptPad Forms instead of Google is praised as a concrete privacy-respecting choice aligned with the principles.
• There is interest in more EU/federal-style funding bodies for “sovereign tech,” with debate over whether for‑profit vehicles (like German GmbH-based initiatives) are appropriate.