---
url: 'https://dri.es/funding-open-source-like-public-infrastructure'
title: 'Funding Open Source like public infrastructure'
author:
  name: 'Dries Buytaert'
  url: 'https://dri.es/about'
date: '2025-08-13T02:57:01-04:00'
license: 'https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/'
type: blog
summary: 'To protect the digital foundation of essential government services, governments should invest in Open Source as public infrastructure and shift from consumption to contribution.'
tags:
  - 'Open Source'
  - Drupal
  - Policy
  - 'Digital sovereignty'
image: blog/funding-open-source-like-public-infrastructure
discussions:
  - { platform: 'Hacker News', url: 'https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44896433' }
  - { platform: LinkedIn, url: 'https://www.linkedin.com/posts/buytaert_funding-open-source-like-public-infrastructure-activity-7361311600600834048-I4R7' }
published: true
featured: true
id: 5856
---

# Funding Open Source like public infrastructure

[image blog/funding-open-source-like-public-infrastructure lazy=false priority=true]

Fifteen years ago, I laid out a theory about the future of Open Source. In [*The Commercialization of a Volunteer-Driven Open Source Project*](https://dri.es/the-commercialization-of-a-volunteer-driven-open-source-project), I argued that if Open Source was going to thrive, people had to get paid to work on it. At the time, the idea was controversial. Many feared money would corrupt the spirit of volunteerism and change the nature of Open Source contribution.

In that same post, I actually went beyond discussing the case for commercial sponsorship and outlined a broader pattern I believed Open Source would follow. I suggested it would develop in three stages: (1) starting with volunteers, then (2) expanding to include commercial involvement and sponsorship, and finally (3) gaining government support.

I based this on how other [public goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good) and public infrastructure have evolved. Trade routes, for example, began as volunteer-built paths, were improved for commerce by private companies, and later became government-run. The same pattern shaped schools, national defense, and many other public services. What begins as a volunteer effort often ends up being maintained by governments for the benefit of society. I suggested that Open Source would and should follow the same three-phase path.

Over the past fifteen years, paying people to maintain Open Source has shifted from controversial to widely accepted. Platforms like [Open Collective](https://opencollective.com/), an organization I invested in as an angel investor in 2015, have helped make this possible by giving Open Source communities an easy way to receive and manage funding transparently.

Today, Open Source runs much of the world's critical infrastructure. It powers government services, supports national security, and enables everything from public health systems to elections. This reliance means the third and final step in its evolution is here: governments must help fund Open Source.

Public funding would complement the role of volunteers and commercial sponsors, not replace them. This is not charity or a waste of tax money. It is an investment in the software that runs our essential services. Without it, we leave critical infrastructure fragile at the moment the world needs it most.

### The $8.8 trillion dependency

A 2024 Harvard Business School study, [*The Value of Open Source Software*](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4693148), estimates that replacing the most widely used Open Source software would cost the world $8.8 trillion. If Open Source suddenly disappeared, organizations would have to spend 3.5 times more on software than they do today. Even more striking: 96% of that $8.8 trillion depends on just 5% of contributors.

This concentration creates fragility. Most of our digital infrastructure depends on a small group of maintainers who often lack stable funding or long-term support. When they burn out or step away, critical systems can be at risk.

Maintaining Open Source is not free. It takes developers to fix bugs, maintainers to coordinate releases, security teams to patch vulnerabilities, and usability experts to keep the software accessible. Without reliable funding, these essential tasks are difficult to sustain, leaving the foundations of our digital society exposed to risk.

Addressing this risk means rethinking not just funding, but also governance, succession planning, and how we support the people and projects that keep our society running.

### When digital sovereignty becomes survival

Recent geopolitical tensions and policy unpredictability have made governments more aware of the risks of relying on foreign-controlled, proprietary software. Around the world, there is growing recognition that they cannot afford to lose control over their digital infrastructure.

[Denmark recently announced a national plan](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/denmark-embraces-open-source-software) to reduce their dependency on proprietary software by adopting Open Source tools across its public sector.

This reflects a simple reality: when critical public services depend on foreign-controlled software, governments lose the ability to guarantee continuity and security to their citizens. They become vulnerable to policy changes and geopolitical pressures beyond their control.

As [Denmark's Ministry for Digitalisation explained](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/denmark-embraces-open-source-software), this shift is about control, accountability, and resilience, not just cost savings. Other European cities and countries are developing similar strategies. This is no longer just an IT decision, but a strategic necessity for protecting national security and guaranteeing the continuity of essential public services.

### From Open Source consumption to contribution

Most government institutions rely heavily on Open Source but contribute little in return. Sponsorship usually flows through vendor contracts, and while some vendors contribute upstream, the overall level of support is small compared to how much these institutions depend on said projects.

Procurement practices often make the problem worse. Contracts are typically awarded to the lowest bidder or to large, well-known IT vendors rather than those with deep Open Source expertise and a track record of contributing back. Companies that help maintain Open Source projects are often undercut by firms that give nothing in return. This creates a race to the bottom that ultimately weakens the Open Source projects governments rely on. 

As I discussed in [*Balancing makers and takers to scale and sustain Open Source*](https://dri.es/balancing-makers-and-takers-to-scale-and-sustain-open-source), sustainable Open Source requires addressing the fundamental mismatch between use and contribution.

Governments need to shift from Open Source consumption to Open Source contribution. The digital infrastructure that powers government services demands the same investment commitment as the roads and bridges that connect our communities.

### Drupal tells the story

I have helped lead [Drupal](https://www.drupal.org/) for almost 25 years, and in that time I have seen how deeply governments depend on Open Source. 

The European Commission runs more than a hundred Drupal sites, France operates over a thousand Drupal sites, and Australia's government has standardized on Drupal as its national digital platform. Yet despite this widespread use, most of these institutions contribute little back to Drupal's development or maintenance.

This is not just a Drupal problem, and it is entirely within the rights of Open Source users. There is no requirement to contribute. But in many projects, a small group of maintainers and a few companies carry the burden for infrastructure that millions rely on. Without broader support, this imbalance risks the stability of the very systems governments depend on.

<p class="pullquote">Many public institutions use Open Source without contributing to its upkeep. While this is legal, it shifts all maintenance costs onto a small group of contributors. Over time, that risks the services those institutions depend on. Better procurement and policy choices could help turn more public institutions into active contributors.</p>

### The rise of government stewardship

I am certainly not the only one calling for government involvement in Open Source infrastructure. In recent years, national governments and intergovernmental bodies, including the United Nations, have begun increasing investment in Open Source.

In 2020, the UN Secretary General's [*Roadmap for Digital Cooperation*](https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/) called for global investment in "digital public goods" such as Open Source software to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Five years later, the UN introduced the [UN Open Source Principles](https://unite.un.org/news/sixteen-organizations-endorse-un-open-source-principles), encouraging practices like "open by default" and "contributing back".

At the European level, the [EU's Cyber Resilience Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Resilience_Act) recognizes Open Source software stewards as "economic actors", acknowledging their role in keeping infrastructure secure and reliable. In Germany, the [Sovereign Tech Agency](https://www.sovereign.tech/) has invested €26 million in more than [60 Open Source projects](https://www.sovereign.tech/tech) that support critical digital infrastructure.

Governments and public institutions are also creating Open Source Program Offices (OSPOs) to coordinate policy, encourage contributions, and ensure long-term sustainability. In Europe, the European Commission's [EC OSPO](https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EC_OSPO) operates the [code.europa.eu](https://code.europa.eu) platform for cross-border collaboration. In the United States, agencies such as the [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services](https://www.cms.gov/digital-service/open-source-program-office), the [United States Digital Service](https://www.usds.gov/), the [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency](https://www.cisa.gov/), and the [U.S. Digital Corps](https://digitalcorps.gsa.gov/) play similar roles. In Latin America, Brazil's [Free Software Portal](https://softwarepublico.gov.br/) supports collaboration across governments.

These efforts signal a shift from simply using Open Source to actively stewarding and investing in it at the institutional level.

### The math borders on absurd

If the top 100 countries each contributed $200,000 a year to an Open Source project, the project would have a twenty million dollar annual budget. That is about what it costs to maintain less than ten miles of highway.

In my home country, Belgium, which has just over ten million people, more than one billion euros is spent each year maintaining roads. A small fraction of that could help secure the future of Open Source software like Drupal, which supports public services for millions of Belgians.

<p class="pullquote">For the cost of maintaining 10 miles of highway, we could secure the future of several critical Open Source projects that power essential public services. The math borders on absurd.</p>

### How governments can help

Just as governments maintain roads, bridges and utilities that society depends on, they should also help sustain the Open Source projects that power essential services, digitally and otherwise. The scale of investment needed is modest compared to other public infrastructure.

Governments could implement this through several approaches:

- **Correctly assess software sovereignty risk.** Governments should understand how much control they have over the software they depend on, and how easily that control can be lost through acquisition, relicensing, or policy changes. My [Software Sovereignty Scale](https://dri.es/the-software-sovereignty-scale) provides a framework for making these risks visible.

- **Track the health of critical Open Source projects.** Just like we have safety ratings for bridges, governments should regularly check the health of the Open Source projects they rely on. This means setting clear targets, such as addressing security issues within _x_ days, having _y_ active maintainers, keeping all third-party software components up to date, and more. When a project falls behind, governments should step in and help with targeted support. This could include direct funding, employing contributors, or working with partners to stabilize the project.

- **Commit to long-term funding with stable timelines.** Just as governments plan highway maintenance years in advance, we'd benefit from multi-year funding commitments and planning for critical digital infrastructure. Long-term funding allows projects to address technical debt, plan major updates, and recruit talent without the constant uncertainty of short-term fundraising.

- **Encourage contribution in government contracts.** Governments can [use procurement to strengthen Open Source](https://dri.es/funding-open-source-for-digital-sovereignty). Vendor contribution should be a key factor in awarding contracts, alongside price, quality, and other criteria. Agencies or vendors can be required or encouraged to give back through coding, documentation, security reviews, design work, or direct funding. This ensures governments work with true experts while helping keep critical Open Source projects healthy and sustainable. 

- **Adopt "Public Money, Public Code" policies.** When taxpayer money funds software for public use, that software should be released as Open Source. This avoids duplicate spending and builds shared digital infrastructure that anyone can reuse, improve, and help secure. The principle of ["Public Money? Public Code!"](https://publiccode.eu) offers a clear framework: code paid for by the people should be available to the people. Switzerland recently embraced this approach at the federal level with its [EMBAG law](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/new-open-source-law-switzerland), which requires government-developed software to be published as Open Source unless third-party rights or security concerns prevent it.

- **Scale successful direct funding models.** The [Sovereign Tech Agency](https://www.sovereign.tech/) has shown how government programs can directly fund the maintenance and security of critical Open Source software. Other nations should follow and expand this model. Replacing widely used Open Source software could cost an estimated 8.8 trillion dollars. Public investment should match that importance, with sustained global funding in the billions of dollars across countries and projects.

- **Teach Open Source in public schools and universities.** Instead of relying solely on proprietary vendors like Microsoft, governments should integrate Open Source tools, practices, and values into school and university curricula, along with related areas such as open standards and open data. This prepares students to participate fully in Open Source, builds a talent pipeline that understands Open Source, and strengthens digital self-reliance.

### Keeping the core strong

Concerns about political interference or loss of independence are valid. That is why we need systems that allow all stakeholders to coexist without undermining each other.

Government funding should reinforce the ecosystem that makes Open Source thrive, not replace it or control it. Companies and volunteers are strong drivers of innovation, pushing forward new features, experiments, and rapid improvements. Governments are better suited to a different but equally vital role: ensuring stability, security, and long-term reliability.

The most critical tasks in Open Source are often the least glamorous. Fixing bugs, patching vulnerabilities, updating third-party dependencies, improving accessibility, and maintaining documentation rarely make headlines, but without them, innovation cannot stand on a stable base. These tasks are also the most likely to be underfunded because they do not directly generate revenue for companies, require sustained effort, and are less appealing for volunteers.

Governments already maintain roads, bridges, and utilities, infrastructure that is essential but not always profitable or exciting for the private sector. Digital infrastructure deserves the same treatment. Public investment can keep these core systems healthy, while innovation and feature direction remain in the hands of the communities and companies that know the technology best.

### Conclusion

Fifteen years ago, I argued that Open Source needed commercial sponsorship to thrive. Now we face the next challenge: governments must shift from consuming Open Source to sustaining it. 

Today, some Open Source has become public infrastructure. Leaving critical infrastructure dependent on too few maintainers is a risk no society should accept. 

The solution requires coordinated policy reforms: dedicated funding mechanisms, procurement that rewards upstream contributions, and long-term investment frameworks.

*Special thanks to [Baddy Sonja Breidert](https://www.drupal.org/u/baddysonja), [Tim Doyle](https://www.drupal.org/u/tim-d), [Tiffany Farriss](https://www.drupal.org/u/farriss), [Mike Gifford](https://www.drupal.org/u/mgifford), [Owen Lansbury](https://www.drupal.org/u/owenlansbury) and [Nick Veenhof](https://www.drupal.org/u/nick_vh) for their review and contributions to this blog post.*

PS: Follow the discussion on [Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44896433) or [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/buytaert_funding-open-source-like-public-infrastructure-activity-7361311600600834048-I4R7).
