The Danish Ministry for Digitalization has taken a bold step in Europe’s ongoing quest for digital sovereignty by publicly committing to replace Microsoft software with open-source alternatives, starting with the ministry's switch to LibreOffice. Caroline Olsen, Denmark's Minister for Digital Affairs, laid out this vision in interviews with national media, stating that within the first month, half of the department’s computers—including her own—would have LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office 365, with all computers targeted for conversion by year's end.
This move reflects a rising wave of government-led migrations across Europe, as various public sectors become increasingly wary of depending on American tech giants for their critical digital infrastructure. Denmark’s journey follows similar paths charted by the city governments of Copenhagen and Aarhus, as well as initiatives in neighboring Germany and the Netherlands, according to reports from The Register, Politiken, and The Local. This article examines Denmark’s strategy, explores its technical and political context, evaluates the challenges such transitions entail, and assesses its implications for organizations globally considering liberation from vendor lock-in.
At its core, the Danish government’s drive to ditch Microsoft is about asserting control over data, infrastructure, and economic flows. Concerns over digital sovereignty have grown markedly in European circles, particularly since the worldwide geopolitical tremors of the late 2010s. As the United States flexes its extraterritorial legal muscle (notably through the CLOUD Act and recurring diplomatic spats), more nations are reevaluating who should ultimately hold the keys to their public sector’s digital house.
This is not just political theater. With reports that US presidential rhetoric, like that of Donald Trump on Greenland, has added urgency to Denmark’s digital reassessment, it’s clear these decisions are grounded in realpolitik. European organizations have good reason to rethink their dependency on US-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) and cloud providers—especially as these relationships channel millions annually in licensing fees abroad, and introduce potential vulnerabilities via foreign jurisdiction or unilateral policy shifts.
According to Minister Olsen, within a month half of her department will be running LibreOffice as a replacement for Microsoft Office 365. The stated objective is a full transition by year’s end—a rapid pace that, if successful, would demonstrate the technical and organizational viability of open-source tools as primary workhorses in a mature European government agency.
Parallel moves in Copenhagen and Aarhus reinforce this momentum, as do similar governmental experiments in Germany’s Schleswig-Holstein and municipal offices in the Netherlands. These shifts, coupled with active lobbying from several European civil society groups urging the European Commission to act, suggest a wider appetite for reshaping Europe’s tech dependencies.
Direct experience and qualitative accounts from The Register’s FOSS Desk and European government consultants illustrate that, in practice, most office staff rely sparingly on such advanced features. Basic formatting and document sharing predominate; true power-users constitute a minority. Nonetheless, even modest usage of proprietary features can complicate a move away from Microsoft Office, and organizations should expect periods of adaptation, retraining, and, in some cases, workflow redesign.
France’s rejection of both Microsoft and Google for official use fueled the development of local SaaS groupware, like La Suite Numérique. These French players are positioning themselves as privacy-respecting, sovereignty-enhancing alternatives, with features that have rapidly matured in response to institutional needs.
Another major player gaining traction is Collabora’s CODE (Collabora Online Development Edition), which essentially serves LibreOffice via self-hosted web interfaces—thereby easing deployment for organizations not yet ready to replatform every desktop but eager to break free from external cloud lock-in.
The EU’s longer-term vision includes the “EU OS” proposal, a continental open-source operating system explicitly tailored to public sector requirements. While still not ready for download or widespread adoption, reported progress and increasing specificity signal a determined move away from generalized, proprietary systems.
Consultants and integrators stand to benefit handsomely from these moves, with significant contracts awarded for planning and execution. Critics could view this as swapping one set of expenses for another, but proponents argue this recycles tax money within Europe rather than exporting it across the Atlantic for indefinite “rental” of software licenses.
It’s worth noting, however, that one-to-one replacements for highly specialized workflows rarely exist. Such migrations invite at least some loss of convenience or functionality, but that’s more a consequence of entrenched proprietary standards than any inherent failing in open-source alternatives.
Increasing EU-level alignment is likely. The European Commission, under pressure from several governments and civil society groups, is considering stronger mandates for open-source adoption. With at least three major member states piloting or expanding their migrations, this trend appears to be gaining unstoppable momentum.
Yet across Europe, the momentum is unmistakable. As The Register evocatively puts it, “more and more toes are being shoved into doors, forcing them open.” For Denmark, breaking with both Microsoft (and, by implication, other global cloud behemoths) represents both a practical step toward digital sovereignty and a symbolic assertion of agency in a rapidly evolving digital order.
The ultimate judgement on the wisdom of such migrations will come with time and real-world experience. But as the tally of public institutions moving away from foreign-dominated software grows, and as Europe’s homegrown software and cloud alternatives mature, it’s clear that the era of European digital dependence is coming to a close—and with it, the rules of the game for every organization, public or private, contemplating its own IT future.
Source: theregister.com Danish department determined to dump Microsoft
This move reflects a rising wave of government-led migrations across Europe, as various public sectors become increasingly wary of depending on American tech giants for their critical digital infrastructure. Denmark’s journey follows similar paths charted by the city governments of Copenhagen and Aarhus, as well as initiatives in neighboring Germany and the Netherlands, according to reports from The Register, Politiken, and The Local. This article examines Denmark’s strategy, explores its technical and political context, evaluates the challenges such transitions entail, and assesses its implications for organizations globally considering liberation from vendor lock-in.
Digital Sovereignty Rises Up the Agenda
At its core, the Danish government’s drive to ditch Microsoft is about asserting control over data, infrastructure, and economic flows. Concerns over digital sovereignty have grown markedly in European circles, particularly since the worldwide geopolitical tremors of the late 2010s. As the United States flexes its extraterritorial legal muscle (notably through the CLOUD Act and recurring diplomatic spats), more nations are reevaluating who should ultimately hold the keys to their public sector’s digital house.This is not just political theater. With reports that US presidential rhetoric, like that of Donald Trump on Greenland, has added urgency to Denmark’s digital reassessment, it’s clear these decisions are grounded in realpolitik. European organizations have good reason to rethink their dependency on US-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) and cloud providers—especially as these relationships channel millions annually in licensing fees abroad, and introduce potential vulnerabilities via foreign jurisdiction or unilateral policy shifts.
LibreOffice in the Public Sector: A Measured Beginning
The rollout of LibreOffice represents an immediate, tangible shift. LibreOffice, the flagship open-source office suite, is seen as a practical first step for organizations serious about digital autonomy. Its compatibility with a wide range of operating systems—including Windows, Linux, and macOS—makes deployment feasible, even in mixed environments typical of government organizations.According to Minister Olsen, within a month half of her department will be running LibreOffice as a replacement for Microsoft Office 365. The stated objective is a full transition by year’s end—a rapid pace that, if successful, would demonstrate the technical and organizational viability of open-source tools as primary workhorses in a mature European government agency.
Parallel moves in Copenhagen and Aarhus reinforce this momentum, as do similar governmental experiments in Germany’s Schleswig-Holstein and municipal offices in the Netherlands. These shifts, coupled with active lobbying from several European civil society groups urging the European Commission to act, suggest a wider appetite for reshaping Europe’s tech dependencies.
The Macro and Micro Challenges of Migration
Mass migrations from one office platform to another are never trivial. The most common refrain from IT departments is, “What about our macros?” Many organizations lean heavily on Microsoft’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) macros, custom styles, and deep integration with services like Outlook/Exchange. These have been honed over years, sometimes decades, and rebuilt by teams no longer in place.Direct experience and qualitative accounts from The Register’s FOSS Desk and European government consultants illustrate that, in practice, most office staff rely sparingly on such advanced features. Basic formatting and document sharing predominate; true power-users constitute a minority. Nonetheless, even modest usage of proprietary features can complicate a move away from Microsoft Office, and organizations should expect periods of adaptation, retraining, and, in some cases, workflow redesign.
Table: Key Technical Hurdles in Office Suite Migration
| Challenge | Microsoft-centric Pitfall | LibreOffice/Alternative Response |
|---|---|---|
| VBA Macros | Deep integration, proprietary code | Limited VBA support; must translate or redesign workflows |
| Outlook/Exchange Groupware | Heavy reliance in enterprise email | Alternatives available (Thunderbird, Evolution), but migration complexity |
| Document Compatibility | Complex documents, legacy formats | Good but not perfect compatibility; some formatting loss |
| User Training | Familiar UIs and habits | Requires concerted retraining and support |
| Support Ecosystem | Massive commercial support | Smaller, but growing open source and regional consultancies |
Alternatives: From Google Workspace to European SaaS
Cutting ties with Microsoft often raises the question of who—or what—fills the void. Google Workspace, while functionally competitive, is also an American SaaS offering and faces the same sovereignty headwinds that initially motivated such moves. Case in point: the Nordic Choice hotel group’s recent pivot to ChromeOS after a ransomware attack exemplified how some organizations "jump from one US-based option to another," a move the French government neatly sidestepped by promoting homegrown alternatives.France’s rejection of both Microsoft and Google for official use fueled the development of local SaaS groupware, like La Suite Numérique. These French players are positioning themselves as privacy-respecting, sovereignty-enhancing alternatives, with features that have rapidly matured in response to institutional needs.
Another major player gaining traction is Collabora’s CODE (Collabora Online Development Edition), which essentially serves LibreOffice via self-hosted web interfaces—thereby easing deployment for organizations not yet ready to replatform every desktop but eager to break free from external cloud lock-in.
The EU’s longer-term vision includes the “EU OS” proposal, a continental open-source operating system explicitly tailored to public sector requirements. While still not ready for download or widespread adoption, reported progress and increasing specificity signal a determined move away from generalized, proprietary systems.
Why Now? End-of-Life Deadlines and Economic Realities
Windows 10’s approaching end-of-life and the looming deprecation of older versions of Exchange and Outlook have injected new urgency into these transitions. The high cost associated with forced upgrades—and the opportunity cost of continued licensing—make migration look increasingly attractive.Consultants and integrators stand to benefit handsomely from these moves, with significant contracts awarded for planning and execution. Critics could view this as swapping one set of expenses for another, but proponents argue this recycles tax money within Europe rather than exporting it across the Atlantic for indefinite “rental” of software licenses.
It’s worth noting, however, that one-to-one replacements for highly specialized workflows rarely exist. Such migrations invite at least some loss of convenience or functionality, but that’s more a consequence of entrenched proprietary standards than any inherent failing in open-source alternatives.
Critical Assessments: Strengths and Risks
Strengths
- Enhanced Sovereignty: Removing foreign-controlled software reduces exposure to unwanted data transfers, unilateral policy shifts, or government overreach—concerns spelled out by both legal experts and privacy advocates.
- Cost Control: Though initial outlays in consulting and retraining are significant, open-source platforms reduce ongoing rental charges, allow redistribution of budgets, and avoid compounding “vendor lock-in.”
- Stimulus to Local Ecosystems: Investment in open-source and European software companies can drive innovation at home, keeping expertise and jobs within the region.
- Alignment with EU Policy: The moves dovetail with recent EU initiatives aimed at strategic autonomy, such as Gaia-X and the declaration for digital rights and principles, which stress open standards and public sector leadership in software freedom.
Risks
- Compatibility Issues: Despite high compatibility rates, edge cases will reveal limits. Documents with bespoke macros or complex layouts may break, demanding significant manual rework.
- User Disruption: A sudden switchover risks confusion and inefficiency among staff. Experience from other markets shows such transitions require extensive retraining and proactive support structures.
- Support Gaps: Microsoft dominates the enterprise consulting ecosystem. While open-source support is available, it can be patchy, especially outside major urban centers.
- No True One-to-One Parity: As The Register notes, the dream of a seamless 1:1 replacement is a mirage; perfection should not be the goal, but “good enough to do the job.”
The Politics of IT Modernization
Denmark’s open, public-facing approach—starting with the ministry responsible for digital affairs—reads as both a tactical and symbolic act. There’s a clear message: digital independence is no longer the preserve of technically minded purists or armchair privacy advocates. It’s now a mainstream government objective, responding to concrete concerns from national security to digital competitiveness.Increasing EU-level alignment is likely. The European Commission, under pressure from several governments and civil society groups, is considering stronger mandates for open-source adoption. With at least three major member states piloting or expanding their migrations, this trend appears to be gaining unstoppable momentum.
Lessons for Enterprises Worldwide
What should organizations outside the public sector—be they private enterprises, NGOs, or educational institutions—make of these moves? The first takeaway is that shifting away from long-standing technology vendors is possible, but only with clear-eyed expectations and thorough preparation. Crucially, it requires:- Inventorizing all custom software, macros, and workflows, identifying non-negotiable dependencies.
- Piloting deployments in isolated teams before organization-wide rollout.
- Building in-house or local expertise to minimize dependence on any single vendor, whether proprietary or open-source.
Conclusion: Forced Doors, Broken Furniture, and the Price of Freedom
Few would claim this sort of migration is easy or costless. Denmark’s move to replace Microsoft software with LibreOffice, and potentially a broader free and open-source office stack, entails significant disruption—for users, IT planners, and support teams alike. Not every feature or cherished shortcut will survive the transition, and the specter of initial bumps or setbacks is real.Yet across Europe, the momentum is unmistakable. As The Register evocatively puts it, “more and more toes are being shoved into doors, forcing them open.” For Denmark, breaking with both Microsoft (and, by implication, other global cloud behemoths) represents both a practical step toward digital sovereignty and a symbolic assertion of agency in a rapidly evolving digital order.
The ultimate judgement on the wisdom of such migrations will come with time and real-world experience. But as the tally of public institutions moving away from foreign-dominated software grows, and as Europe’s homegrown software and cloud alternatives mature, it’s clear that the era of European digital dependence is coming to a close—and with it, the rules of the game for every organization, public or private, contemplating its own IT future.
Source: theregister.com Danish department determined to dump Microsoft
