The Document Foundation has wanted to publicly position itself regarding the imminent arrival of Euro-OfficeLibreOffice, the new European office suite developed by several technology companies across the continent and presented as a commitment to digital sovereignty. Just hours before its official launch, the organization behind LibreOffice... posted an open letter in which he questions some of the discourse surrounding the project, especially some statements related to its innovative nature and its role within the European free software ecosystem.
The controversy revolves not only around Euro-Office as a product, but also around the true meaning of concepts such as technological independence, open standards, and digital sovereignty. While The Document Foundation does not oppose the emergence of new open-source office suites developed in Europe, it believes that certain promotional messages may offer an incomplete view of the history of European office software and the ongoing challenges regarding interoperability and file formats.
The Document Foundation questions Euro-Office's narrative of digital sovereignty
The Document Foundation's criticism comes at a particularly relevant time for Euro-Office, a platform launched with the backing of companies like IONOS and Nextcloud, which aims to offer a European alternative to solutions such as Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace. However, the organization behind LibreOffice believes the initiative cannot be presented as the first European open-source office suite, noting that projects like OpenOffice.org and later LibreOffice have been fulfilling that role for decades.
Beyond the historical discussion, the real debate lies in the standards used by each platform. The Document Foundation argues that European digital sovereignty cannot be separated from the use of open formats like ODF, which LibreOffice has championed for years. According to this view, the predominant adoption of formats associated with the Microsoft ecosystem can perpetuate certain technological dependencies, even when the software used is open source.
The controversy also stems from Euro-Office's underlying technology. The project is built on a fork of ONLYOFFICE, a suite historically known for prioritizing compatibility with DOCX, XLSX, and PPTX formats. This strategy has allowed it to offer an experience very similar to Microsoft Office, something particularly valued by companies and government agencies that need to maintain maximum document compatibility with third parties.
This is precisely where one of the great dilemmas of modern office automation arises. On the one hand, open formats represent a way to reduce dependencies and promote long-term interoperability. On the other hand, market realities force us to coexist with Microsoft formats, which continue to be the de facto standard in numerous public and private organizations worldwide.
Euro-Office contradicts itself
The Document Foundation's stance highlights this contradiction. The organization argues that a true digital sovereignty strategy should be based on open standards from the ground up, while projects like Euro-Office advocate a more pragmatic approach focused on facilitating the transition through maximum compatibility with the most widely used formats.
In any case, the discussion generated even before the official launch demonstrates that the conversation about digital sovereignty in Europe is far from over. Euro-Office arrives with the intention of becoming a relevant player in the European market, while The Document Foundation takes the opportunity to remind everyone that technological independence depends not only on the origin of the software, but also on the standards and formats on which it is built.