Open source for integrations: municipalities, stop compromising

Whichever municipality I visit, there is almost always enthusiasm about open source. Yet many municipalities ultimately choose closed source. That also applies to integration solutions. A missed opportunity, because in this area open source is, in my view, the only justified choice.

Within government, open source is gaining traction quickly. Rightly so, because it enables public organizations to learn from one another and prevents dependency on vendors. Since 2020, this has even been anchored in policy: the “Open, unless” principle states that government software should be open source by default. In other words, the source code must be publicly accessible and reusable.

Open source also fits perfectly with Common Ground, the program that encourages municipalities to collaborate more effectively. So why do municipalities still make different choices, even when they genuinely support the idea?

Why integration in particular should be open source

Integration is the glue between all your systems. It ensures that your case management system can communicate with your financial system, that citizen data can be exchanged securely, and that different departments can work together seamlessly.

For such a critical layer, municipalities should not take risks. You want transparency, you want to be able to verify what is happening, and you do not want to be tied to a single vendor. Open source provides those safeguards.

If you truly want both Common Ground and open source, then commit to it fully. Do not compromise. In my view, once you dilute it, the impact is lost.

Why municipalities still too often choose closed source for integration

They underestimate what it costs

In my opinion, many municipalities underestimate the hidden costs of closed source solutions. Yes, you pay a significant amount in license fees upfront and you know what you are paying for. But every five years you have to go through a new procurement process. If you end up selecting a different vendor, you must migrate everything from one platform to another. The effort and costs of such migrations are rarely small.

With open source, you can separate software from services. First, you choose open source software. Then you procure services on top of it. If you are satisfied with the platform but less satisfied with the service provider, you do not need to migrate your entire platform.

There are misconceptions about security

“Our software is safer because no one can look inside.” It is an argument I still often hear from traditional software vendors when discussing open source. Should I simply take their word for it? With open source, anyone can inspect the source code and form their own judgment. Knowing that others can review your code is actually a strong incentive to get it right.

Another misconception is that open source is free and built by volunteers. That may apply to hobby projects, but certainly not to large-scale software initiatives. Open source vendors are professional organizations with skilled teams behind them. They simply do not sell licenses, they sell services.

They unintentionally choose closed source

Many municipalities, often without realizing it, choose solutions that appear to be open source but are not. The fact that a company is active on GitHub does not mean its products are available there or are open source. And a setup in which you receive the source code if the vendor goes bankrupt is not a real solution either. In that situation, it is still unclear how you would compile, run, and maintain that code. That is nearly impossible if the software was not truly open source from the start.

The claim “we are open source because we share our solution with all our customers” is also misleading. That is not open source, but a closed system used by multiple customers.

Benefits that are too significant to ignore

The advantages of open source integration are compelling:

• No more vendor lock-in. When a vendor gains a monopoly position, innovation slows down. With open source, competition remains fair.
• Sharing between municipalities. Municipalities can help each other move forward instead of each purchasing the same services and paying for them individually. A solution built as open source for municipality A can be reused by municipality B at no additional cost. Municipality A, in turn, learns from the experiences of municipality B.
• Greater room for innovation. Open source fosters collaboration and improvement, because anyone can contribute and enhance the solution.

Time for clear decisions

Through the Common Ground program, open source has become more widely recognized and appreciated. Still, within municipalities there are people who place less importance on open source and Common Ground, often without stating that openly.

Make open source mandatory for integration

For integration solutions, open source should in my view be mandatory. Not as a vague ambition or future promise, but as a hard requirement from day one.

Municipalities urgently need the benefits of open source: transparency, no vendor lock-in, lower long-term costs, and the ability to learn from one another. In the context of integration solutions, these benefits are not optional luxuries but essential building blocks for a healthy digital government.

It is time for municipalities to stop compromising. Open source for integration is no longer an experiment, but a necessity. Make it mandatory, and the Netherlands will move one step closer to the digital government its citizens deserve.

Ready for true open source integration?

WeAreFrank! demonstrates that open source integration without license fees is entirely possible. You pay only for services, not for the right to use software. Whether it concerns the Zaakbrug for Common Ground, integrations with Haal Centraal, or migrations of existing systems, our Frank!Framework provides the transparency and flexibility municipalities need. Without vendor lock-in and without hidden costs.