Funding sovereignty: public money / public code, mutualisation and virtuous public-private models

One of six themes that emerged from the EOLE 2026 online kick-off workshop (25 June). Background: see the kick-off topic.

Why it matters for sovereignty. Sovereignty money is flowing, but “if money for sovereignty means giving money to big companies that do not foster free and open source software, we will have a problem”. How public funds are structured decides whether they build commons or new dependencies.

What came up at the workshop. This cluster (public money, funding for sustainability, procurement and governance, mutualisation) drew strong support on the board. Two working patterns were described. In France, government funds part of a software vendor’s development on condition that what is publicly funded is opened, while staying compatible with the vendor’s business model. In Spain, the “innovation contract” used in Barcelona takes another route: instead of assigning IP to the administration, the IP stays with the developer, with an obligation to open source the result. This was connected to the idea of “echo copyleft”: rights stay attached to the software via the licence, so desired outcomes are driven by incentives rather than regulation. A recurring tension: public bodies opening everything they fund must be complemented by what private open source editors do, an emerging and not yet mapped practice.

What already exists to build on. FSFE’s Public Money? Public Code!; the Sovereign Tech Fund / Sovereign Tech Agency model; innovation and pre-commercial procurement contracts (Spain / EU); French public open source practice (DINUM-type approaches, co-funding by public banks); mutualisation between administrations.

Open questions. How to “make it rain money on forgotten yet fundamental projects”? Which model contract clauses pair “developer keeps IP” with an obligation to open? How to mutualise investments across administrations? How to attach an estimated strategic value to projects regardless of their headcount?

How to contribute. Reply below with mechanisms, clauses, worked examples and failures worth learning from, ideally by end of September 2026. Rapporteurs welcome for the Barcelona event (November 2026): volunteer by replying below or by direct message on this forum. Possible outputs: a clause toolkit and a short catalogue of funding mechanisms with worked examples.

Hello all,

The discussion continues in person on Friday 27 November 2026 at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (registration is free, see EOLE 2026 – EOLE). Three recent items bear on the questions in this thread.

On contract clauses, the Commission’s proposed Public Procurement Act (COM(2026) 590, 9 September 2026) normally leaves pre-existing IP with the economic operator (Article 64(1), with a transfer derogation in Article 64(2) for stated public-interest cases such as critical infrastructure). Article 63 requires the operator to grant the buyer the non-exclusive licences needed to use, adapt, maintain and upgrade the deliverables. In innovation procedures, Article 64(4) leaves newly created IP with the operator unless compelling public-interest reasons stated in the procurement documents justify otherwise; preventing technological lock-in is one such reason. None of these articles requires publication under an open licence: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12969-2026-INIT/en/pdf

On funding, the Sovereign Tech Agency, five years after its feasibility study, reports more than EUR 60 million through five programmes and more than 110 investments, and work with the Digital Commons EDIC on a pilot European Sovereign Tech Fund: Celebrating five years of strengthening open… | Sovereign Tech Agency

The EU Open Source Strategy of 3 June announces an Open Source Maintenance Instrument for essential components, without specifying eligibility conditions. The EUR 2 billion it mentions is an estimate of public and private money mobilised over seven years for all its measures: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10220-2026-INIT/en/pdf

Has anyone written a clause that lets the supplier keep the IP and still obliges publication of the code under an open licence? If so, could you share the wording or the tender reference?

Benjamin, for the EOLE committee