# Digital sovereignty requires courage to change and responsibility

Source: https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility
Language: en
Published: 2026-11-06
Updated: 2026-11-06

A conversation with Süleyman Zorba about European technology, open standards, IT education and Austria’s digital future.

On 5 November 2026, I had the opportunity to represent ForgeOne in a conversation with [Süleyman Zorba](https://www.parlament.gv.at/person/5681), a member of Austria’s National Council and an IT technician, about digital sovereignty. We discussed European and Austrian technologies, open source, IT education, public procurement and the practical steps required to turn strategic objectives into change.

The exchange was open, constructive and grounded in practice. I brought six concerns in particular to the discussion: giving Austrian and European technology greater consideration, involving existing initiatives such as OSSBIG, introducing open technologies from lower secondary school onwards, examining long-term vendor dependencies critically, making major public IT procurements more visible and moving from discussion to concrete action.

Digital sovereignty requires the courage to change, concrete first steps and responsibility for a sustainable Austria. Sustainability here extends beyond energy efficiency. It includes maintainable technology, economic viability, social participation, organisational knowledge and the ability to act over the long term.

## From the technological foundation to practical implementation

My [previous discussion at the Austrian Federal Chancellery](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-exchange-federal-chancellery) focused on the technological foundation: hardware, operating systems, platforms, open interfaces, jurisdiction and the ability to operate systems independently. That perspective remains essential. The next question is how to carry it into business, government, education and public procurement.

My practical work with open platforms, infrastructure and migrations has shown me that digital sovereignty does not have to remain a distant vision. Organisations can already map dependencies, understand data flows, test portability and evaluate suitable alternatives in manageable pilots. The aim is not an uncontrolled wholesale replacement, but credible freedom of choice.

## Give European and Austrian technology a fair opportunity

Austria and Europe already have technology companies, IT service providers, research institutions, data centres and open-source communities capable of making a larger contribution to our digital infrastructure. The missing elements are often visibility, access to projects and dependable demand rather than an absence of viable technology.

Fair competition does not mean excluding international providers. It means defining requirements so that suitable European alternatives can genuinely be assessed. Small and medium-sized companies need realistic access to public tenders. Open standards, interoperability, data portability and credible exit strategies should be considered throughout the system lifecycle.

European solutions that meet the requirements can be used today. Where functional differences remain, actual adoption, development contracts, investment, qualified customer feedback, larger user communities and professional support structures can create room for further development. Progress is never automatic, but a sustainable European product ecosystem cannot emerge without demand and a long-term economic perspective.

My position is clear: we cannot lament Europe’s technological dependencies while excluding suitable European alternatives simply because they do not yet match every feature of an international market leader. Security, economic viability, functionality and a credible operating model must, of course, still be met.

## Connect existing open-source initiatives

Austria already has networks that connect business, the public sector and open source. One example is [OSSBIG – Open Source Software Business Innovation Group](https://www.ossbig.at/verein/). The organisation addresses the economic and strategic role of open source and cooperation between private and public users.

One concern I emphasised in the conversation was making better use of such existing structures. They can combine operational and procurement experience, make practical requirements visible and connect companies, policy, administration and education. Why should we not involve established initiatives more closely in developing and implementing concrete digital-sovereignty measures? OSSBIG is an example of the expertise and connections that Austria can draw on when putting digital sovereignty into practice.

## IT education: understand technology and learn to shape it

A major part of our conversation concerned the people who will build and operate tomorrow’s systems. It matters to me that pupils encounter different systems, open technologies and ways of thinking from lower secondary school onwards. Digital education must go beyond learning how to use a specific application.

Young people should be able to explore operating systems, networks, internet infrastructure, programming, automation, privacy, security and open file formats. Linux and open-source software can contribute to this, as can commercial tools. The important point is exposure to different models and the opportunity to experiment.

Tomorrow’s specialists must be able not only to operate technology, but to understand, question and shape it. Independent problem-solving is a foundation for secure and sovereign infrastructure.

## Do not stop at discussion: start with practical steps

Strategies, events and expert discussions matter, but they do not produce technological change on their own. We do not necessarily need another fundamental debate about whether digital sovereignty matters. We need to start using the options that already exist systematically. No organisation has to replace its entire infrastructure overnight. Possible first steps include:

1. Map existing vendor dependencies and contractual commitments.
2. Identify critical systems, data and interfaces.
3. Develop open-standard, export, migration and exit requirements.
4. Require suitable Austrian and European alternatives to be evaluated in new projects where legally and objectively appropriate.
5. Run and adequately fund limited pilots with clear success criteria.
6. Assess existing Austrian and European infrastructure services.
7. Move proven solutions into regular operation incrementally.
8. Build internal operational knowledge and connect public bodies, companies and external expertise more effectively.
9. Document successful projects and share their results in a form others can assess.

This approach limits transition risk and produces evidence from actual use. It also prevents digital sovereignty from remaining an abstract ambition without operational consequences.

## European technologies are already available

Depending on the requirements, European products can already be deployed directly or evaluated in pilots. Examples from areas in which ForgeOne works include:

- [XWiki](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/xwiki) for knowledge management and collaboration.
- [grommunio](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/grommunio) for email, groupware and collaboration.
- [OpenProject](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/openproject) for project and portfolio management.
- [Bareos](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/bareos) for backup, archiving and recovery.
- [Proxmox VE](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/proxmox) for virtualisation and infrastructure management.
- [SUSE](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/suse) for enterprise Linux and infrastructure platforms.
- [eM Client](https://forgeone.solutions/en/em-client) for email, calendars and personal productivity.
- [ATIX orcharhino](https://forgeone.solutions/en/products/orcharhino) for systems management, provisioning and lifecycle automation.

This is not a blanket product recommendation. Suitability depends on functionality, integrations, support, security, scale, operational capability and lifecycle cost. European origin or an open-source licence does not by itself make a system sovereign or environmentally sustainable.

Actual adoption creates references, feedback, support revenue and resources for further development. Demand alone does not guarantee a good product, but without economic opportunity, documentation, integrations, support and long-term maintenance have little room to grow.

## Vendor dependency is not about one company

Public debate often reduces vendor lock-in to Microsoft. That is too narrow. Vendor dependency is not a Microsoft problem but a structural challenge across the IT industry. It is created by architecture, licensing, operations and procurement decisions and must be assessed regardless of the vendor’s name.

A current example is the “Microsoft Enterprise & Select” procedure, reference 3601.05320, listed by the [Austrian Federal Procurement Agency](https://www.bbg.gv.at/information/aktuelle-ausschreibungen/). [EU notice 770423-2026](https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/770423-2026) states an estimated total value of EUR 1.698 billion for the framework agreement, while BBG currently lists 26 November 2026 as the deadline. Its three lots cover Microsoft products and services under the Enterprise, Select Plus and CSP models, including software licences, subscriptions, maintenance, cloud products and related services. An estimated framework value is neither an approved budget nor the value of later call-offs or money already spent. It nevertheless illustrates the long-term economic scale of such decisions.

The procedure concerns Microsoft products and services. Competition between resellers is not the same as product-neutral competition between different technological approaches. This does not imply a breach of procurement law. It does justify asking when alternatives are assessed, how migration is considered and which dependencies are created over the contract lifecycle.

The same analysis must extend to other ecosystems. [IBM completed its acquisition of Red Hat in 2019](https://www.ibm.com/investor/news/ibm-completes-acquisition-of-red-hat) and [completed the acquisition of HashiCorp in February 2025](https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-02-27-ibm-completes-acquisition-of-hashicorp%2C-creates-comprehensive%2C-end-to-end-hybrid-cloud-platform). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, OpenShift, Ansible Automation Platform, Terraform and Vault are relevant to many modern architectures. They can be technically strong and appropriate, while ownership, subscription models, product strategy and migration options still require long-term assessment.

Terraform’s 2023 licence change and the resulting [OpenTofu initiative under the Linux Foundation](https://opentofu.org/faq/) show how licence and governance decisions can have practical consequences for users and ecosystems. Open-source projects, commercial products and proprietary components must be distinguished accurately.

## Digital sovereignty also needs European infrastructure

Software is only one part of digital value creation. It also matters where infrastructure is operated, who can access it technically, which jurisdiction applies to operators and subcontractors, and whether data and configurations can move to a different operating model.

Austria has data-centre operators, hosting companies, IT service providers and infrastructure expertise of its own. Procuring suitable services from Austrian and European companies can strengthen regional value creation, retain jobs and expertise, enable investment in data centres and support the growth of European cloud offerings. Actual demand is necessary if alternative operating models and long-term operational capability are to grow on a sustainable economic basis.

A physical location in Austria does not automatically mean Austrian control. Relevant factors include ownership and operator structures, applicable jurisdictions, technical access to data, encryption and key management, operational responsibility, data portability, exit strategies and economic independence. Conversely, European hosting alone does not guarantee complete legal or technical independence.

AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud are capable platforms. The relevant concern is not that they are American companies, but the concentration of infrastructure services, long-term control over operational processes and the economic effects on European providers. European operators must be assessed against the same standards.

If Austria and Europe have data centres, specialists and infrastructure companies of their own, why should we not use and develop these capabilities more deliberately? This is not a call for blanket procurement bans or legally untested preferences, but a constructive economic and technology-policy question.

## Public procurement as an economic lever

Public-sector procurement can reinforce existing ecosystems or create opportunities for new providers. Tenders should therefore be designed around the full lifecycle rather than ideology.

A sound assessment covers required functions, open standards, migration and export paths, security, operating cost, internal skills and competition over the entire period of use. Smaller European providers need lots and participation conditions that reflect their capabilities without lowering necessary quality or security standards.

Replacing working systems without regard for cost and risk would be irresponsible. Never creating alternatives because the current operation is convenient would be equally short-sighted. Sovereign procurement must preserve stability today and room to act tomorrow.

## Strategic decisions need public visibility

Large IT procurements influence public budgets, infrastructure, competition and technology dependencies for years. Publication on an official procurement portal provides formal transparency, but it does not automatically make the significance of a decision understandable to the wider public.

One concern from our conversation was therefore clearer public context for major IT procurements. Alongside formal procurement data, strategic objectives, alternatives considered, long-term commitments and possible dependencies should be explained in an accessible way. This is neither an allegation that information is hidden nor an unsupported claim about media coverage. It is a call for understandable context around decisions with lasting economic and technological effects.

## Courage to change and responsibility for a sustainable Austria

Courage to change means questioning established structures and evaluating alternatives seriously. It does not mean replacing functioning technology without cause. Change is valuable where it improves choice, security, maintainability and expertise over the long term.

Responsibility means looking beyond short-term prices and established habits. Ownership and control, long-term maintenance, security, European value creation and future options belong in the decision as well.

A sustainable Austria needs modern digital infrastructure and people and organisations capable of understanding, developing and operating it. This includes European software companies, independent data-centre operators, educators, researchers, IT service providers and open-source communities.

I am convinced that digital sovereignty does not come from rejecting international technology. It comes from building credible alternatives, strengthening our own capabilities and retaining the freedom to decide.

## Conclusion: today’s decisions create tomorrow’s options

The exchange with Süleyman Zorba was another step in a longer conversation between policy, business and technical practice. Dialogue matters, but change follows only when it leads to assessments, pilots, investment and procurement decisions that can be explained and reviewed.

Austria and Europe already have many of the technologies, companies and specialists required for a more sovereign digital future. We will not remove every dependency overnight, but that should not become a reason to postpone necessary change indefinitely.

If European solutions are to remain viable, grow and develop over the long term, we must give them the opportunity to do so. That requires concrete decisions, investment and a willingness to take new paths. For me, this is a question of courage to change and responsibility: decisions should serve not only the next contract or political term, but a sustainable Austria and future generations.

I thank Süleyman Zorba for the open and constructive exchange.

## Hero image

[![Mathias Rumbold of ForgeOne and Austrian National Council member Süleyman Zorba discussing digital sovereignty on 5 November 2026.](https://forgeone.solutions/media/mathias-rumbold-sueleyman-zorba-digitale-souveraenitaet-2026-11-05-original.jpg)](https://forgeone.solutions/media/mathias-rumbold-sueleyman-zorba-digitale-souveraenitaet-2026-11-05-original.jpg)

## Author

Mathias Rumbold

## Category

- [News](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?category=news)

## Tags

- [Digital Sovereignty](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=digitale-souveraenitaet)
- [Technological Sovereignty](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=technologische-souveraenitaet)
- [European Tech Sovereignty](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=european-tech-sovereignty)
- [Cloud Sovereignty](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=cloud-sovereignty)
- [Open Source](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=open-source)
- [European Open Source Solutions](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=european-open-source-solutions)
- [Jurisdiction](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=jurisdiction)
- [Vendor Lock-in](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=vendor-lock-in)
- [forgeone](https://forgeone.solutions/en/news/digital-sovereignty-courage-change-responsibility?tags=forgeone)

## Links and sources

- [Austrian Parliament: Süleyman Zorba](https://www.parlament.gv.at/person/5681)
- [OSSBIG: Association and objectives](https://www.ossbig.at/verein/)
- [BBG: Current invitations to tender](https://www.bbg.gv.at/en/information/current-invitations-to-tender)
- [TED: Microsoft Enterprise & Select, notice 770423-2026](https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/770423-2026)
- [IBM: Completion of the Red Hat acquisition](https://www.ibm.com/investor/news/ibm-completes-acquisition-of-red-hat)
- [IBM: Completion of the HashiCorp acquisition](https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-02-27-ibm-completes-acquisition-of-hashicorp%2C-creates-comprehensive%2C-end-to-end-hybrid-cloud-platform)
- [OpenTofu: Background and governance](https://opentofu.org/faq/)
- [XWiki: Open-source knowledge platform](https://www.xwiki.com/)
- [grommunio: Groupware and collaboration](https://grommunio.com/)
- [OpenProject: Open-source project management](https://www.openproject.org/)
- [Bareos: Open-source backup](https://www.bareos.com/product/)
- [Proxmox: Virtualisation and infrastructure platforms](https://www.proxmox.com/en/)
- [SUSE: Enterprise Linux and infrastructure](https://www.suse.com/)
- [eM Client: Email and productivity](https://www.emclient.com/)
- [ATIX: orcharhino](https://atix.de/en/products/orcharhino/)