On September 24, XDA Developers picked up a Tweakers investigation with the kind of detail only an infrastructure story can produce: the Dutch government is piloting a NixOS-based desktop across eight municipalities under a project called DAWO — Digitaal Autonome Werkomgeving Overheid, or Digital Autonomous Government Work Environment. In July, the Interdepartmental Commission for Government Operations signed off on the effort. Cybernews reported this week that DAWO is meant to replace Windows and Microsoft 365.

The grievance behind it is legitimate. In 2026, Microsoft was accused of handing the US House unredacted emails, minutes, and invitations belonging to Dutch civil servants who work on EU tech regulation. Earlier, after US sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the company cut off email service to the ICC’s chief prosecutor. If you run a European state and you are still routing your government through Redmond, you have not been paying attention.

But the Dutch have diagnosed their problem and then mis-solved it. Sovereignty is not a license file. It is a counterparty.

Microsoft Is a Bad Vendor. It Is Still a Vendor.

Here is the thing nobody applauding the DAWO announcement wants to say out loud: when you leave a bad vendor, you also leave the bad vendor’s obligations.

Microsoft is domiciled in the EU, bound by a data processing agreement, subject to the GDPR, reachable by a Dutch judge, and possessed of assets a bailiff could theoretically locate. You can serve it. You can fine it. You can summon its Brussels office and make somebody sit in a chair and answer.

NixOS is none of those things. It is a volunteer-built operating system, governed — as LWN laid out in its account of the project’s leadership crisis — by a five-member foundation board with no term limits that selects its own members. There is no NixOS Nederland B.V. There is no account manager, no escalation path, no commercial entity with anything at risk.

The Dutch have traded a vendor they can subpoena for a repository they cannot.

A Commit History Is Not a Support Contract

The technical case for NixOS is real. It is declarative, reproducible, and it scales beautifully. It is also unforgiving: the whole point is that the configuration describes the machine, and when the description is wrong the machine does not boot politely.

The Dutch government’s code platform hosts the DAWO blueprint and the NixOS code, with commits running through September 2026. That is a genuine artifact. It is not a maintenance agreement, an on-call rotation, or a security response team.

As one systems administrator at a participating municipality put it in a Slack message to a colleague: “We have maybe four people in this country who can debug our own image, and two of them are contractors.”

That is the actual dependency now. Not Microsoft. Labor. And Dutch public IT has spent fifteen years outsourcing precisely the in-house competence a project like this requires, on the theory that someone else would always be available to hire back. The market for people who can reason about Nix derivations is thin, expensive, and mobile — the sort of person who takes a better offer in Berlin and takes their institutional memory with them.

My Side of the Aisle Has This Wrong Too

The reflex on the right is that government has no business writing software, and that open source is free, so this is a bargain. Both halves are wrong.

What a state should buy is accountability, not artifacts. Whether the code is MIT-licensed or sold by a Seattle monopoly is a secondary question. The primary question is: who is contractually obligated to fix it, by when, and what happens to them if they do not? A proprietary contract answers that badly. A GitHub organization answers it not at all.

This is also the moment open-source advocates should feel a chill rather than a thrill. Your project just became load-bearing for a NATO member’s municipal payroll because a committee liked the reproducibility. Nobody voted on that. The Nix community spent its recent history fighting over a defense contractor’s conference sponsorship and circulating open letters asking its own chair to resign. Those fights were settled by whoever had the stamina to keep typing. That is a fine way to run a hobby. It is a strange way to run the Netherlands.

Pay the Maintainers, Then Cancel the License

There is a version of this that works, and it does not require going back to Microsoft. Germany’s Sovereign Tech Fund already pays open-source maintainers directly, which is the correct shape of the intervention: money in exchange for named responsibility.

A serious Dutch program would fund the foundation on conditions — term limits, an independent board, a security team with published response times, an EU legal entity with assets on the balance sheet and someone empowered to sign. And it would keep the Microsoft contract alive until all of that exists.

Anybody can cancel a license. The hard part of sovereignty is having somebody to call, and somebody to serve.

Sources