Linqa: a Free Software bilingual collaboration platform developed with public money

Linqa is a bilingual collaboration platform whose code is Free Software and developed using public money. It helps the daily work of the Franco-German Forum for the Future, a public institution that fosters collaboration among actors in France and Germany. We dive into the roots of Linqa with the people behind it.

To learn how Linqa started and how it works we talked with the CEO of the organization that commissioned this platform, Lale Eckardt, the co-founder of the company that developed it, Juergen Neumann, and Linqa Project Lead, Robin Denz.

FSFE: First of all, can you explain what is Linqa?

Juergen Neumann (DMX co-founder*): Linqa is a simple web-based whiteboard application with automatic translation between two languages. Editors can create and upload bilingual content, e.g. notes or PDFs, and arrange it within workspaces. Each workspace has dedicated members, who can discuss and comment on these contents in their native language in a chat panel. All content is visible in both languages and can be re-edited to manually improve the automatic translation.

*DMX develops dmx – the context machine, a Free Software semantic data platform. DMX developed Linqa for the Franco-German Forum for the Future.

FSFE: What brought you to develop a platform like Linqa?

Robin Denz (Linqa Project Lead): The development of Linqa was spurred by the necessity to enhance collaboration steered by the Franco-German Forum for the Future. With the aim of strengthening bilateral relations and promoting sustainable transformation, we facilitate dialogues among local initiatives, public administrators, civil society, and academia. In co-creative processes with a wide array of experts, we elaborate actionable policy recommendations for both governments. For this, we needed a platform that could transcend language barriers and streamline our complex work processes. Partnering with DMX to create Linqa allowed us to tailor a solution that meets our specific needs.

FSFE: Compared to fully proprietary solutions, which is the main benefit of this tool?

Juergen Neumann: Linqa provides an easy-to-use solution to communicate and collaborate across language barriers in bilingual teams. While many other platforms are cloud-based services that tend to make money out of the users’ data, Linqa is Free Software and can be self-hosted. The automatic translations in Linqa are currently done using DeepL’s EU-based translation service (which is proprietary, ndr).

FSFE: DeepL is proprietary. Do you have any plans to change this dependency? Which option do you see to address this?

Juergen Neumann: The fact that Linqa depends on DeepL was driven by the client's requirements for very accurate automatic translations in alignment with data protection requirements, as we found them in their public tendering back in 2021. Unfortunately, by that time we did not know of any comparable and suitable Free Software based option to replace their service. Luckily we can find promising candidates these days. We are in the process of evaluating LibreTranslate as an alternative service.

FSFE: Why did you decide to develop a platform whose code is Free Software?

Juergen Neumann: Since the founders of DMX Systems have been Free Software advocates early on, we have chosen a Free Software license from the very beginning. When you start to develop code, you immediately understand that writing software is all about sharing knowledge. That’s why we think that the resulting code should be licensed as Free Software as well. In addition to that, we think that Free Software, Open Standards and open interfaces are the only way to effectively avoid a vendor lock-in. They can be seen as catalysts to encourage people to join efforts. We think this is especially relevant for public administrations spending public money. That’s why we always try to convince our clients to stay the course and join the Free Software environment with their requirements and investments.

The transparency of the code and algorithms allows to investigate how the software was made and how it works. The code is no black box: improvements by others are not only possible, but explicitly welcome.

FSFE: What is the main benefit of LInqa being developed as Free Software for the Franco-German Forum for the Future?

Robin Denz: The main benefit of developing Linqa as Free Software lies in its potential for widespread adoption and adaptation. The Franco-German Forum for the Future has a very specific use of the Linqa platform, which follows from our particular methodology and the people we work with. We get exactly what we need with Linqa but still its potential goes beyond our specific use case. So, I am excited and curious to see how other organisations can make use of its different functions in other fields than the one of Franco-German sustainable governance. For instance, in the humanitarian sector. By making the platform Free Software, we empower other non-profit actors and organizations to leverage its capabilities for their specific domains and requirements. This not only enhances its utility beyond our immediate use case but also encourages a community of users to contribute improvements and innovations, enriching the platform for all users.

FSFE: Which role do you think Free Software has in developing this kind of projects, commissioned with public money?

Robin Denz: Free Software plays a crucial role in projects like Linqa by fostering transparency, accessibility, and community-driven innovation. Knowing that a software like Linqa can benefit a wide array of other non-profit actors can act as a strong legitimization for putting public money in this kind of projects. For us, it meant to be able to customize and extend the platform according to our evolving needs without being constrained by proprietary limitations. Moreover, the ethos of Free Software aligns with our mission of promoting collaboration and knowledge sharing across borders, ensuring that our tools remain inclusive and adaptable to diverse contexts.

FSFE: What challenges did you have to face when developing Linqa?

Juergen Neumann: The first challenge is about licensing: Since there are very many different software licenses, it can be difficult to find out if you can actually publish your code - including the external libraries – under the terms and conditions of your desired license.

The second challenge is about money: Still too few individuals and organizations understand the challenges of the Free Software ecosystem. To develop and maintain good code, you need skilled people who all need to make a living. If individuals and especially organizations were willing to spend more money on Free Software instead of proprietary software, it would be beneficial to all.

Also, for us as a company, finding investors often feels much harder, because our business model does not include intellectual property but is free and open to all.

FSFE: What would you say to other companies that are not aware of the benefits of Free Software?

Robin Denz: I would emphasize that choosing Free Software for your project not only aligns with principles of openness and collaboration but also offers practical advantages. It can foster innovation through collective intelligence and enable rapid customization to meet specific needs. Moreover, Free Software encourages ethical considerations such as data privacy and security, which are increasingly critical in today's digital landscape. All in all, Free Software helps empowering organizations to build robust, community-supported solutions that can benefit society as a whole.

FSFE: Some years ago, the FSFE launched the “Public Money? Public Code!” initiative. With it we ask that software paid by taxpayers’ money should be released as Free Software. What is the role of Free Software in an organisation like the Franco-German Forum for the Future?

Lale Eckardt (Franco-German Forum for the Future CEO): The Franco-German Forum for the Future is rooted in the Treaty of Aachen signed by the two governments in 2019. We are thankful that the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF), which finances our work on the German side, was supportive of an experimental approach. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided against jumping to conclusions and developing a run-of-the-mill platform just to tick off digital engagement. Instead, we took our time trying to understand where in our specific work and dialogue process a digital tool can offer significant value and how. With Linqa we have a tailored tool whose strength lies in its specificity and simplicity. And I think that is why Linqa is gathering interest from other organisations as well.

FSFE: How was the procurement process regarding Linqa? Was there a public tender or direct contact with DMX? Was it easy to procure Free Software? Do you think is there a way to make it simpler to help the procurement of Free Software tools in public administration?

Lale Eckardt: Of course, we put the development of our platform out to public tender, with DMX submitting the most competitive offer. Free Software development was not specified in the tender but emerged as an idea through our cooperation with DMX. The main challenge for procurement processes of this complexity is finding a middle ground between specificity and openness. On the one hand, as the contracting authority, we need to be as specific as possible about our needs. This ensures fair competition and reliable offers. On the other hand, we wanted to remain open to learning from and with the service provider, as well as critically assessing our hypotheses during the development process. To balance these two aspects, we aimed to clearly define the functionalities we envisioned for the platform without fixing too many technical details.

FSFE: What would you say to other public administrations that want to develop software? Would you recommend them to follow the Public Money? Public Code! principle?

Lale Eckardt: If the money spent on developing software from within public administration or in publicly funded project like ours can not only make public administration more efficient but also, through its availability as Free Software, strengthen our digital infrastructure in the public interest, than that is good news for our democracies!

The “Public Money? Public Code! (PMPC)” initiative aims to establish Free Software as the standard for publicly funded software. Promoted by the Free Software Foundation Europe, PMPC is supported by over 200 organizations and administrations, and more than 35.000 individuals. You can also support the campaign signing the Open Letter and with a donation to support this work.

Support FSFE

EC cuts funding support for Free Software projects

The Next Generation Internet initiative has supported Free Software projects with funding and technical assistance since 2018. Despite its proven success, the European Commission made the decision to cut this funding in the current draft for the Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme. This decision highlights the larger problem of the lack of motivated and sustainable public funding for Free Software projects.

The Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative has been a project of the European Commission’s (EC) Horizon Europe programme since 2018. It provides funding for scientific research and innovation that can improve the Internet as a platform, including for the development of Free Software. The FSFE has always been a part of this initiative as a consortium member in the NGI Zero (NGI0) sub-group, where we provide legal and licensing support to more than 400 Free Software projects funded by the initiative.

As the EC works on the future plans for Horizon Europe, the FSFE is disappointed to learn that NGI is no longer mentioned as part of the plans for the Horizon Europe funding drafts and work programmes for 2025. The lack of public funding to such crucial technologies negatively impacts not only Free Software but the whole future of the Internet.

A blow to the vast NGI ecosystem

NGI is structured to support a large number of organizations and individuals working on open digital technologies, through open calls and a cascade funding system. Through this system, the NGI allocates its budget to fund crucial open technologies of the Internet. Open assets include Free Software, Open Hardware, Open Data, Privacy Enhancing Technologies, AI, networking, and many more. Under the previous Horizon Europe Cluster 4 Work Programme, spanning from 2023-2025, €27 million have been allocated to these projects.

The FSFE has over the past years seen the wide array of Free Software projects funded by NGI, that support, in their mission, values that promote privacy, security, diversity in opinion and participation, as well as choice in the digital sphere, among others. These are values we view to support democratic participation online, and to enable users to better control their digital technology. NGI funding support was also crucial for the FSFE to develop better copyright and licensing practices for software projects, making compliance easier for everyone.

This cascade funding system is however not renewed in the current draft proposal for Horizon Europe 2025, which will have the unfortunate effect of depriving many Free Software projects (and other types of beneficial research and innovation projects) of vital funding. This has us worried about the future of many of these ongoing grassroots level Free Software (and other) projects.

Where did the funding go?

An impact study finds that NGI projects have been immensely positive in providing funding and technical support for a diverse range of open projects, and in fostering an internet ecosystem that respects digital rights, promotes sustainability, and upholds EU legislation and values. Indeed, in practical terms, the study also notes that from the over 1,000 projects that received funding, 57% offer “viable alternatives to existing market solutions”, and 74% continue to operate post-funding.

Given these positives achieved by the NGI initiative at large, it is disappointing and baffling to see the decision to discontinue funding for it. Without the Horizon Europe 2025 umbrella, NGI is now left without alternative funding, which will harm the Free Software ecosystem and therefore, EU innovation. The reasons for this shift in budget away from funding Free Software and the NGI initiative seems to be an allocation of more funds for AI, leaving internet infrastructure by the wayside. Meanwhile, the EC has thus far declined to comment to share its official reasoning for striking this funding from its budget.

The future of an open Internet needs public funding

Funding is an important component in nurturing new Free Software technologies, and often makes the difference for whether a Free Software project is able to survive, succeed, or fall into abandonware. This is a particular problem because large parts of our infrastructure are based on these projects, as they guarantee the necessary independence and resilience. Cancelling funding means curtailing our own autonomy. This debate once again demonstrates a fundamental problem: We need sustainable, secure, and dedicated funding for NGI and Free Software solutions that help Europe to control its technology.

With the EU attempting to create fairer and more competitive markets with the Digital Markets Act, boosting alternative business models that challenge large, monopolistic, and consolidated digital platforms (also known as “gatekeepers”) is essential. Free Software is key for achieving such ambitious objectives. Public money is therefore more important than ever to support Free Software alternatives in internet infrastructure. It is impossible to achieve Device Neutrality, and a free and open internet without the commitment of the public sector to maintain a vigorous and sustainable ecosystem of viable and real-life tested software alternatives that can disentrench gatekeepers.

We therefore call for these funds to be made available again immediately and for funding to be secured in the medium to long term. This is the only way to successfully drive the digitalisation of Europe forward.

What you can do to help

The budget decision is not yet official - so there is still a chance to allocate funds for NGI. It is therefore very important to contact Ursula von der Leyen (President EU Commission), DG Connect, to ask them to make the funds available.

Pressure is also needed from member states. Contact your National Contact Point (NCP) and persuade them to also advocate for the NGI funds to be made available.

Support FSFE

CRA and NIS2: Protecting Free Software ecosystem in implementation

Together with NLnet Labs and the Open Source Security Foundation, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) submitted feedback on the NIS2 implementation act, pointing to the need of protecting the European Free Software ecosystem.

The NIS2 implementation act, with its cyber security regulations and implementing decisions, is also addressing Free Software ecosystem in Europe. It is therefore crucial that these measures, while contributing to cyber security, do not hamper Free Software development, especially as Free Software is a strong component in the cyber security area.

In this sense, the FSFE, together with NLnet Labs and the Open Source Security Foundation, jointly provided feedback to the consultation on the European Commission’s draft NIS2 Implementing Act concerning "Cybersecurity risk management & reporting obligations for digital infrastructure, providers and ICT service managers" (launched on 27 June).

We raised our concerns about the focus on business to business (B2B) relationships. Complex software products, which are at the core of services of the digital infrastructure sector of NIS2, are often published by independent individuals, not-for-profit actors or academic organisations. In this case, beyond the freedoms granted by Free Software licences, no relationship exists between developer ('direct supplier') and an entity in scope for NIS2.

The FSFE actively participates in regulation processes such as consultations, attends hearings and is in close dialogue with decision-makers in the EU to make sure cyber security regulation does not hamper Free Software development. If you are negatively affected by the implementation of CRA and NIS2, please contact us.

Support FSFE

Belgian court’s decision impacts the future of Router Freedom

In an historic ruling within the EU, a Belgian court has upheld the decision of the country’s regulator to introduce Router Freedom for fiber networks. The objections, raised by a local internet service provider, were deemed unfounded. This landmark decision represents a significant victory for consumer rights, and we urge other national regulators to follow this example.

Internet services providers (ISPs) have been pushing back in different ways to limit the ability of end-users to choose and use their own routers for internet connection. After a thorough regulatory process which officially confirmed Router Freedom in Belgium, the local ISP Orange contested the decision of the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications (BIPT) alleging lack of proportionality. Although past court cases in other countries have been decided in favour of end-users, the Orange vs the BIPT case represents an important victory for Router Freedom: this is the first time a court refers to fiber networks from the perspective of the regulatory framework established by the 2020 reform of the telecommunications law in Europe.

Orange’s allegations rebutted by the court

In September 2023, the BIPT, following the BEREC guidelines, defined the position of the “network termination point“. This means that routers, modems and optical network terminals (ONT) would not be part of the ISPs’ infrastructure, opening up the possibility for freedom of choice in the equipment market. The regulatory decision encompassed fiber networks, following by a comprehensive technical, economical and legal analysis conducted by the regulator.

Soon after the publication of the decision, Orange started litigation at the Market Court in Brussels against the regulator, listing a long list of arguments against the decision:

• The BIPT was not diligent in the decision-making process;
• The BIPT insufficiently researched the market and technical situation in Belgium to decide to place the NTP at Point A;
• The decision should be reversed because it violates proportionality. The market situation in Belgium is different from other countries that decided in favour of Router Freedom. Instead, Point B should have been chosen;
• Orange was under the assumption that the BIPT would choose Point B, therefore violated its trust;
• The decision was not technology-neutral because it excluded other terminal equipment (like TV decoders) from its scope.

The court dismissed all Orange’s arguments as unfounded, confirming the BIPT’s decision to introduce Router Freedom in Belgium by defining the position of the NTP at Point A. The court ruled that:

• Although the court has the authority to check the legitimacy of the regulator’s decision, it should not regulate in its place. In any case, the BIPT has not violated the principles of proper governance and was diligent in following the regulatory framework proposed by BEREC, in particular the Guidelines for the Identification of the NTP;
• The BIPT was not unreasonable to set the NTP at Point A, as Orange stated multiple times. Instead, the regulator acted diligently and took into account the different technologies (cable, copper, fibre). The BIPT determined that there are no objective technological reasons to limit freedom of terminal equipment. The purpose of setting the NTP at point A is to create a framework that stimulates competition;
• Deciding in favour of Point A was proportionate. The regulator diligently analysed competition in the equipment market; the costs for operators and the service provision, sustainability and energy consumption aspects. Orange did not provide concrete data to demonstrate that the BIPT insufficiently researched technological necessities to limit freedom of terminal equipment. The situation in each country is indeed different. That’s why regulators are required by BEREC to assess whether there are objective criteria to limit this freedom: the BIPT’s comprehensive assessment demonstrated that there are none;
• The BIPT has not violated the trust of the operators. It is not sufficient for Orange to claim that their own concrete interest is better served with a different outcome than the one proposed by the BIPT (limiting Router Freedom at Point A). The BIPT did not arbitrarily determine the position of the NTP;
• Media boxes and TV decoders are not the same as routers and modems, so they should be treated differently.

The FSFE emphasises the importance of this ruling as the court has not only clarified the procedural aspects, but confirmed the Belgian regulator's diligence in analysing all the market, technical and sustainability aspects concerning Router Freedom. It should be highlighted that the court reaffirmed the BIPT’s conclusion that no technological necessity to limit Router Freedom in fiber networks was found. This resonates with FSFE’s demands that ISPs’ commercial interests should not prevail over consumer rights. This ruling should serve as an precedent for other EU member states who have argued the existence of such technological constraints in fiber networks.

The future of Router Freedom is under attack, help us safeguarding it

For many years ISPs have been pushing back in different manners to limit the ability of end-users to choose and use their own routers for internet connection. Their lobbying power has been intense against Router Freedom in fiber networks. Countries like Austria and Latvia have prioritized operators’ interests by not safeguarding end-users’ freedom of routers, while others like Greece and Croatia have promoted a compromise by allowing Router Freedom in DSL and coax but excluding fiber. Particularly concerning are countries, like Germany, which have positively decided in the past in favour of Router Freedom but are facing pressure from ISPs to exclude fiber networks.

The FSFE is the only civil-society organisation that systematically monitors and advocates in favour of Router Freedom across Europe. We have intervened in key regulatory processes, and articulated alliances and coalitions with local digital rights groups, industry representatives and consumer protection organisations. We have participated in dozens of conferences and events in Europe, and have been quoted by the media, think tanks and academics.

Most importantly, we are aiming at the future. Our advocacy does not expire in the short term. We are committed to Device Neutrality as we believe everyone should be able to bypass gatekeepers – these small or large corporations blocking their rights – to run Free Software on their devices. For example, while Apple is hampering software freedom on smartphones, ISPs prohibit subscribers to have their own routers running Free Software operating systems.

An open, healthy and neutral Internet needs Router Freedom, as this freedom refers to the hardware layer of Net Neutrality. Indeed, Router Freedom was considered a top priority by a study on the future of the Net Neutrality Regulation commissioned by the EC last year. The study cited the FSFE in several parts.

New challenges are appearing in the horizon. Next year the EU will assess its telecom legislation that tasked BEREC to develop the guidelines on the NTP. In parallel, as the importance of satellite networks grows, it is not clear how regulators will react to lack of freedom of choice among proprietary devices.

A big shout out for the FSFE Benelux Team for the amazing work in translating the lengthy and complex court decision!

Support FSFE

SFP#25: MirageOS and OCaml with Hannes Mehnert and Matthias Kirschner

For our 25th episode of the Software Freedom Podcast we are happy to welcome Hannes Mehnert, one of the MirageOS core developer. Matthias Kirschner, president of the FSFE, and Hannes talk about MirageOS. This episode gives an overview of everything from the basics to the future of MirageOS.

As one of the core developers of MirageOS, Hannes Mehrnert, has a deep understanding of the inner workings of the programming framework and its modules. He and Matthias talk about the usage of MirageOS, the funding and how you as a volunteer can support MirageOS. However, they not only stop there but also cover the functional programming language OCaml, the foundation on which it all builds. Listen to a deeply interesting conversation between Hannes and Matthias while learning more about MirageOS, modular systems, reproducible builds and functional programming.

This is the perfect episode for everybody who wants to get familiar with MirageOS and modular systems!

Show notes

• MirageOS
• OCaml, a functional programming language
• Follow Hannes on Mastodon
• Xen Project
• Next Generation Internet Zero
• Indian cuisine the curry book and functional programming (DE)
• robur Coop

If you liked this episode and want to support our continuous work for software freedom, please help us with a donation.

Support FSFE