After the recent news that funding for the Next Generation Internet initiative would be cut for the next phase of Horizon Europe, the European Commission has expressed vague support for Free Software solutions. Unfortunately the Commission is failing to provide concrete examples on how to do so. This incident has highlighted the fragility of the EC funding for software freedom, and the need for change in the long-term funding.
1 Like
I liked the presence of the âdiscuss thisâ link in the article, but it directs to the incorrect post.
In the draft budget for 2025, it is not specified who will be funded (neither NGI nor anyone else) nor what amount will be allocated. Only global envelopes and project-specific amounts are mentioned. Additionally, there has been a feedback period. Has anyone provided input? If not, what are the reasons?
These funds are generally quite versatile: they are not solely intended for financing open source projects. Each project can be eligible if it partially meets certain criteria; open source being one such criterion but not the only one. Therefore, competition is open for any project aiming at âsteering internet evolution towards an open and interoperable systemâ. NGI can submit an application for funding as presented in this document; the criteria seem perfectly aligned.
I do not quite understand what elements from project 2025 form the basis for this article; however, if we assume there is indeed a decrease in NGI funding (although it is not specified), then by examining other documents we can question potential reasons behind its weakening compared to competing projects.
Regarding substance, our society appears to be moving towards increased centralization of policies, regulations, and funding. This centralization requires more accountability and transparency. Perhaps NGI faces difficulties justifying these funds while supporting independent individuals. In particular, the EU expects investments to produce impacts at a European scale with real and significant adoption. It might be interesting to have a dashboard of key performance indicators (KPI) to demonstrate growth and usage of NGI projects.
On the other hand, it must be noted that adoption remains low within the community. The graph on funding is explicit: two-thirds of projects are again funded by NGI. This may indicate a lack of community buy-in. However, the goal of this European funding is to demonstrate an ability not to rely exclusively on this funding and to generate profitable activity. This confirms my impression that the tech community continues to focus on developing new solutions independently while perhaps forgetting that this community funding should generate real and useful usage. Shouldnât we prioritize usage in our objectives? The report clearly states that new technologies must compete with existing usages. We need to find other solutionsâperhaps non-technological ones.
In conclusion, I suggest that the most constructive response to this potential reduction in funding would be to acknowledge that NGI faces competition from other initiatives for similar funding sources. It would then be wise to evaluate our approaches and propose new measures in order to meet expectations. An open letter protesting sends a contrary message against a willingness for adaptation and collaboration. What should we learn from this situation?