The Swiss federal administration is deliberately deploying open-source software to reduce dependency on individual technology providers – a cultural shift driven by the Digital Law Embag.
Summary
- Awareness of technological dependencies has increased in the federal administration; Embag mandates the publication of administrative software as open source, but does not prescribe its use.
- A feasibility study (BOSS) on a Microsoft 365 alternative is running with approximately 150 test users; challenges exist in building know-how and integrating with existing business applications.
- Open source reduces vendor lock-in, but also creates new risks through possible dependencies on support service providers and requires enterprise capability as well as quality control.
People
- Daniel Markwalder (Federal Councilor's Delegate for Digital Transformation and ICT Governance)
Topics
- Open-source software
- Digital sovereignty
- IT independence
- Cloud infrastructure
- Administrative digitalization
Clarus Lead
Markwalder sees open source as the key to digital sovereignty, but warns against illusions: dependencies shift, but emerge in controllable areas. What matters are open standards and genuine interoperability. The role of open source will gain further weight in regulated sectors over the coming five years – not least as a criterion in public procurement.
Detailed Summary
The Swiss Digital Law (Embag) stipulates that software developed by the federal administration must be published as open source. However, the law regulates neither the form of publication nor the preferred platform. The Federal Chancellery therefore created an OSS catalog in December 2025 and published tools to establish uniform standards in the administration.
Practical tests for the Microsoft 365 alternative (BOSS project) with approximately 150 users from various administrative units are already underway, but face challenges such as building expertise and integrating with business applications. Markwalder argues that while open source significantly reduces vendor lock-in, new dependencies can simultaneously emerge – such as through support service providers. The open code, however, offers more control and long-term independence than proprietary solutions. A critical point: it is not always truly open source when companies advertise it as such.
In the future, AI will change software development. Markwalder expects open-source communities to evolve from open programming to open prompting – it then becomes less about finished software and more about the path of its creation. In the area of sovereign cloud infrastructure and AI models (such as the Swiss Apertus project), Markwalder sees particularly high potential.
Security-relevant processes – such as algorithms for credit checks or anti-money laundering – represent exceptions. Even there, individual components can be outsourced and published.
Key Messages
- Open source is not a panacea, but a tool for controlled reduction of vendor lock-in.
- Open standards and interoperability are central; without them, interchangeability remains illusory.
- Habit and historically grown entanglements (such as Microsoft Office in business applications) are greater hurdles than technical feasibility.
Critical Questions
Evidence: What measurable metrics demonstrate that the BOSS feasibility study actually achieves productivity and security with open-source alternatives, and how do these differ from established Microsoft products?
Conflicts of Interest: What funding sources and commercial dependencies exist behind the open-source projects used, and how is it prevented that a switch from Microsoft to other providers creates new lock-in scenarios?
Causality and Alternatives: Is a hybrid strategy not also conceivable – selective migration instead of complete replacement of proprietary systems – that reduces risks and limits migration costs?
Feasibility: What specific training and how much additional IT staff does the federal administration need to actually operate open-source software, and who bears these costs?
Enterprise Capability: Are there sufficiently mature and certified open-source solutions for mission-critical processes (e.g., social insurance, tax administration) with comparable support levels as proprietary systems?
Geopolitics: To what extent is the strategic shift to open source truly a measure of sovereignty, or does it build new dependencies on the open-source ecosystem, which in turn is controlled by a few dominant actors (GitHub, cloud providers)?
Sources
Primary Source: Daniel Markwalder in Interview: "How Authorities and Companies Reduce Dependencies with Open Source" – Netzwoche, Dylan Windhaber (Interviewer), 27.07.2026 – https://www.netzwoche.ch/news/2026-07-27/wie-behoerden-und-unternehmen-mit-open-source-abhaengigkeiten-verringern
Access: 27.07.2026 | Access Scope: Complete
Verification status: ✓ 27.07.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-check: 27.07.2026