Digital Dependency Dilemma: Govt Urged to End Vendor Lock-in

The previous government, in the name of digitization, left several strategic infrastructures hostage to certain local and foreign companies, creating a complex web of legal and operational dependencies that will not be easy to dismantle. This was stated by Faiz Ahmad Taiyeb, Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor of the Interim Government for the postal, telecommunications, and ICT sectors.

Calling for collective action from all ministries, divisions, and institutions, the engineer urged them to move away from what he termed “the dangerous disease of shortsightedness and blind conformity” that mortgages the future of the country’s digital transformation to a handful of companies.

He emphasized that ministries, departments, agencies, state-owned companies, and autonomous bodies should retain full ownership of any software or hardware purchased. In his words, “Automated systems purchased with taxpayers’ money, VAT, or foreign loans should not be vendor-locked, software-locked, or hardware-locked.”

Faiz noted that many vital national infrastructure systems and software automation projects have already been tied to such closed systems, with vendor dependencies lasting until 2028, 2030, or even 2034. He said license renewal fees for these systems are “sky-high,” and even minor code changes, profile updates, or configuration modifications are costing thousands of dollars.

On August 8, in a post on his verified social media account, he wrote in a tone of dismay: “No software should be purchased without the source code being owned by the concerned organization.”

He argued, “Any organization that cannot create or maintain a GitHub repository should not purchase software in the name of automation. System and software services should be procured through sister enterprises or ministries that have this capacity.”

“Bangladesh is a country of 180 million people, facing new problems every day. Many design flaws occur during the architecture phase that need to be corrected later. There is no thought given to API integration and interoperability from the outset, nor to security or redundancy. This is why software requires continuous adaptation, upgrades, and modifications. In locked systems, such changes are neither easy nor cost-effective, and they consume vast amounts of time. With foreign software, months can be wasted just to explain what is needed and why. Meanwhile, license fees are paid alongside high change or upgrade fees. At the end of the day, despite being branded as automation, these systems fail to deliver citizen services. This needs to change,” he added.

His appeal has already received responses from tech experts and entrepreneurs. BDOSN General Secretary Muhibbul Muqtadir said that to break free from vendor lock and closed systems, a state-level policy decision is essential—government-funded software must have its source code owned by the government. “Open-source technology must be prioritized, and designs should ensure open APIs and interoperability to prevent dependency on specific vendors. All agreements must clearly state license, renewal, and configuration costs. Through Escrow Agreements, source codes should be kept with neutral third parties so that if a vendor ceases service, the system can still operate. Government institutions must build in-house technical teams capable of making minor changes. Legal reforms should safeguard source code, IPR, and exit clauses. Risk-prone existing systems should be gradually reviewed and liberated through red team audits. Strategic software must be identified and governed by clear policies. Above all, transparency and public participation in such technological investments are crucial,” he said.

Cornerstone Strategies Co-founder Munir Hasan stated, “Ownership of source code and mandatory technology transfer should be ensured. An in-house team must be formed to handle small and medium adaptations as needed. Contracts should include provisions for renegotiation every two years and, if necessary, fresh tenders for new systems. Although replacement is challenging, it must be done to reduce costs.”

Shoaib Mohammad added, “Look at the models of France and Germany—they are increasing the use of open-source software in government operations. Source code of software purchased with public funds must be open to the public. Where open-source software exists, its use should be mandatory. Where it doesn’t, development should be done with the condition of source code ownership. The company can sell its source code to 100 other places if it wants, but the government must have unconditional rights to use it.”