In some boardrooms, “open source” still triggers an ideological debate. In a regulated financial institution, that is the wrong lens. The real question is how you diversify risk, avoid excessive lock‑in, and retain control over where your data lives and how it is protected.
An open‑source‑friendly architecture—Linux, open collaboration tools, self‑hosted or EU‑based services—can reduce your exposure to single vendors and give you more flexibility on encryption, key management, and data residency. It does not mean doing everything yourself, but it does mean you are not entirely dependent on a handful of US hyperscalers for critical functions.
From a CSSF perspective, the badge on the software matters far less than the quality of your governance and controls. They expect you to identify risks, document mitigations, and demonstrate resilience, whether your solution is proprietary or open source. Weak patching, unclear responsibilities, or missing documentation will be criticised regardless of licence model.
Do you have a documented strategy for where open‑source components make sense in your stack and how they are governed? Or are “open” tools only appearing as tactical exceptions when a team cannot get a licence for the proprietary option of the month?