The Document Foundation criticizes Euro-Office over LibreOffice, ODF and digital sovereignty

Just before the expected announcement of Euro-Office, Italo Vignoli from The Document Foundation published an open letter to office suite users. In it, he criticized the way the new project is being presented as the “first open office suite developed in Europe.”

According to Vignoli, this claim overlooks the history of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice. OpenOffice.org was released as an open source project in 2001, based on the StarOffice codebase, while LibreOffice has been developed since 2010 by the community around The Document Foundation.

Euro-Office as a European alternative to Microsoft Office

Euro-Office is an initiative involving several European technology companies and organizations, including IONOS, Nextcloud, EuroStack, XWiki, OpenProject, Soverin, Abilian and BTactic. The project is being promoted as a sovereign, open source alternative to Microsoft Office, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace.

According to the available announcements, Euro-Office is expected to offer a word processor, spreadsheets, presentations and collaborative work features. The project is intended to be developed in Europe, under European governance, with a focus on public administration, education and businesses.

At the same time, Euro-Office is not a project written from scratch. Available information suggests that it is based on OnlyOffice code, which has already triggered discussion around licensing, open source compliance and the actual meaning of “sovereignty” in this context.

The Document Foundation: LibreOffice came first

The strongest criticism from The Document Foundation concerns the marketing narrative. Vignoli argues that calling Euro-Office the first European open office suite is inaccurate, because OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice already existed long before it.

From the perspective of free and open source software history, this is an important point. LibreOffice has been one of the most significant open source projects in Europe for many years, and its development is closely tied to open document standards, especially ODF.

The dispute over ODF and OOXML

The most important technical part of the letter concerns document formats. The Document Foundation has long promoted ODF, the Open Document Format, as an open standard that gives users greater control over their documents and reduces dependence on a single software vendor.

Vignoli criticizes Euro-Office for using OOXML by default, a format strongly associated with Microsoft Office. According to The Document Foundation, this weakens the argument for digital sovereignty because it reinforces dependence on a format historically controlled by Microsoft and designed primarily around compatibility with Microsoft’s own office suite.

This is a key issue in the wider debate. Digital sovereignty is not only about where software is developed, where companies are headquartered or whether infrastructure is located in Europe. It is also about data standards, long-term access to documents, interoperability and avoiding lock-in to a single ecosystem.

Is Euro-Office a competitor to LibreOffice?

Euro-Office and LibreOffice may be seen as partially competing projects, but their goals are not identical. LibreOffice is a mature desktop office suite with a strong focus on ODF and the traditional model of working with local documents.

Euro-Office, on the other hand, is being presented as a modern, web-based and collaborative alternative to Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. This means its main target may be group work environments, public administrations, schools and organizations looking for European cloud-based productivity tools.

The problem begins when the project is promoted as “the first” or as “truly sovereign” without acknowledging earlier projects and without clearly explaining which document formats will be treated as primary.

Digital sovereignty is not just about code

The open letter from The Document Foundation is a reminder that digital sovereignty requires more than European branding. What matters is not only where a project is developed, but also:

• who controls the code,
• who controls the data formats,
• whether users can easily move their documents to another application,
• whether the default formats are open standards,
• whether the project is transparent about licensing and governance,
• whether the community can meaningfully participate in its development.

In this sense, the Euro-Office debate is not just a conflict between office suites. It is part of a broader discussion about what Europe really means by technological independence.

Conclusion

Euro-Office may become an important project for the European office software market, especially if it offers a convenient alternative to Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. The fact that major European players are investing in open productivity tools is significant.

At the same time, the criticism from The Document Foundation should not be ignored. LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org are an important part of European open source history, and ODF remains one of the key elements of real independence from closed ecosystems.

If Euro-Office wants to be sovereign in more than name, it should clearly answer questions about default document formats, ODF compatibility, governance, licensing and its relationship with the OnlyOffice codebase. Without that, the phrase “European digital sovereignty” risks sounding more like marketing than a real technological shift.