Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Government United States

Libreboot.Org Urges Support for Proposed 'Free Software' Law in New Hampshire (libreboot.org) 112

Posted by EditorDavid from the I'm-just-a-bill dept.
Libreboot.org is publicizing an event this Tuesday of "global importance to Free Software projects, and the movement as a whole... If you live in New Hampshire or in one of the neighbouring states, especially Massachusetts, please listen up!

"If you are further away and unable to reach New Hampshire all that easily, please spread the following news anyway. It's important." An important bill is being proposed in New Hampshire, which would enshrine much of what we know as Free Software into law... [H]ere is a paraphrasing of what it proposes:


- Specifically bans state-run websites from serving non-free javaScript to clients

- Creates a commission to provide oversight, watching the use of Free Software by state agencies

- Bans state agencies from using proprietary software — maybe this could include schools, in the future!

- If a person is tried in a criminal case, they have the right to audit the source code of any proprietary software that collects evidence against them

- Encourages data portability (able to transfer data from one program to another)

- Bans certain non-compete clauses and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) pertaining to Free Software projects

- Bans state/local law enforcement from assisting with the enforcement of copyright claims against Free Software projects

- Bans state agencies from purchasing non-free software if free software exists, for a given task....


At first glance, it may not seem that the bill affects individuals, but don't be fooled; this is a hugely positive step forward for everyone! If the state is using Free Software, that most likely means it'll be used in education as well. Although perhaps not immediately and readily apparent, this is a stake in the heart of proprietary software's current dominance, because it would remove one key element of its attack against us; its abuse of education services. If education services are using Free Software, that means they'll probably have children (the ones being educated) using it too. This is a huge step, and it will result in more Free Software developers in the future. Free Software will become more and more mainstream to the masses, which can surely only be a good thing...!

[I]magine if more states like what they see and start to copy the new legislation. Now imagine that countries besides the U.S. start doing it, inspired by the US's success (and I think it will be a resounding success). Imagine a world where Free Software, free as in freedom, is the default everywhere. Imagine a world where Free Software licensing is required reading material in schools. Imagine a world where any five year old can install a free operating system such as GNU+Linux, and Computer Science is mandatory in schools from a young age. Imagine filing your tax returns with Free Software, exclusively. Imagine not even thinking about that, because it became the norm.

Imagine a world where proprietary software doesn't exist, because it is obsolete; entire generations of people are taught to value freedom, and to staunchly defend it, helping each other learn and grow (and produce better software in the process, with less bugs, because people are now free to do that, without relying on some evil company)...

 Free Software is a revolution that we in the Free Software movement have rigorously upheld and fought for, over many years, but we still face an uphill battle because children are not taught in schools about free computing, nor are they encouraged to learn; they are taught to view computers as products to throw away every 1-2 years, that they can run a few apps on but otherwise are not allowed to do anything with. The concept of a general purpose, fully reprogrammable computer is heavily suppressed in mainstream culture. Most people in the world do not run a free operating system; the idea of a computer being a mere appliance is normalized (as opposed to the idea of it being a highly liberating tool for development and the expansion of human knowledge)....

Something is happening in New Hampshire, which could redefine our movement and give free software real power instead.
The post links to a state representative's tweet describing how supporters can testify in person to support the bill. "If this bill is passed in New Hampshire, more states will likely follow," argues Libreboot.org. "It will lead to a massively renewed drive to liberate all computer users, and U.S. laws tend to be copied/pasted around the world too. This bill, if passed, will have a hugely positive impact on Free Software at a global level...

"The proprietary software companies like Microsoft and Apple will also be there, trying to argue the case against the use of Free Software."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libreboot.Org Urges Support for Proposed 'Free Software' Law in New Hampshire More

Libreboot.Org Urges Support for Proposed 'Free Software' Law in New Hampshire

Comments Filter:

  • not going to have any effect anywhere else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      Yes, I got a kick out of the claim "If this bill is passed in New Hampshire, more states will likely follow." Maybe they can get Iowa and Illinois to join them, just like in allowing people to ride motorcycles (on public roads) without wearing helmets.

      • Re:Nice idea but (Score:5, Informative)

        by RedShoeRider ( 658314 ) on Sunday January 09, 2022 @10:45AM (#62157051)

        I was going to mod on this, but to explain the comment to the non-USA folks:

        New Hampshire is a bit of an oddity in the USA, especially on the Eastern seaboard. The State Motto, literally written on every single vehicle license plate, is "Live Free or Die." Having relocated from another state, we thought that was a quaint saying, leftover from the Revolution.

        It's not.

          NH does not require motorcycle helmets, vehicle insurance, seatbelts, has no income tax, sales tax, knife laws, or smoke detector laws. And we don't require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed (though, in practice, no one carries open). We are the only state in the USA that does not require car insurance (Ok, there's sort of a loophole in Virginia for this), you can ride in the bed of a pickup truck, etc... The State is very big on personal and town-level accountability. The view, in general, is that you let the people chose their own way, and there are consequences for the choices, too. It's not like a lot of states that nanny you. While Vermont is known for the libertarian streak, NH is a little more balanced, though some of that personality of our neighbor comes in.

        Let you think it's the Wild West: It's also not. In our view, by the state staying out of most things and letting the people do as they see fit on a personal and town level, there is more sense of community than other places we've lived. About the tax structure: no sales/income tax, but the property taxes are "high" compared to the surrounding states. They're still not as as high as other states (New Jersey, New York, California).

        • The State Motto, literally written on every single vehicle license plate, is "Live Free or Die."

            NH does not require motorcycle helmets, ... seatbelts, ... or smoke detector laws.... you can ride in the bed of a pickup truck, etc...

          So, "Live Free and Die." Got it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kenh ( 9056 )

            "Does not require" does not mean motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, or smoke detectors are banned from the state, it simply means residents can choose to use them or not, and police don't have to enforce seatbelt or helmet laws, and fire officials don't have to enforce smoke detector regulations.

            I understand the new NYC DA (Bragg) wants to redefine armed robbery to only apply when the robber actually pulls the trigger - who does that help? How does that reduce armed robbery (in the classic sense) in NYC? Oh, an

            • Drivers without seatbelts lose control in accidents and kill other people. Drivers without insurance are essentially stealing money from the people whose vehicles/property they damage but can't pay for. If landlords aren't required to provide smoke detectors, it may not be easy or cheap for a tenant to install.

              But as for motorcycle helmets -- fair enough, splatter your brains across the road to your heart's content.

              • I don't know about where you are, but around here, roads and freeways are constantly being shut down for fatal accident investigations in all of the warm months, because accidents involving motorcycles without helmet wearing riders/passengers are always fatal.

                I'm all for everyone's personal agency, but that shit is real irritating.

                I've seen so many people in the last two years riding no helmet but with a facemask on. I've laughed every time

        • About the tax structure: no sales/income tax, but the property taxes are "high" compared to the surrounding states. They're still not as as high as other states (New Jersey, New York, California).

          As a followup on the tax structure, when you tally up the total tax costs of living in a state, New Hampshire is always one of the lowest. We're one of 3 states that vie for lowest tax burden, and it depends somewhat on the year, assumptions and method of measurement.

          People chide NH for having one of the biggest property taxes thinking that they're better off in their own home state, but when you add sales tax, income tax, and everything else tax you end up keeping more of your money if you live in NH.

          Our t

        • The view, in general, is that you let the people chose their own way, and there are consequences for the choices, too.

          Considering that at least in case of seatbelts, there are also consequences of your choices *for other people*, how is this justified? How do you make a dead person accountable for someone else's death? Is is also argued that with your choice of being present in New Hampshire you accept the possible consequence of being killed by the flying body of someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt and that it's your fault for putting yourself in danger by entering New Hampshire?

          • The view, in general, is that you let the people chose their own way, and there are consequences for the choices, too.

            Considering that at least in case of seatbelts, there are also consequences of your choices *for other people*, how is this justified? How do you make a dead person accountable for someone else's death? Is is also argued that with your choice of being present in New Hampshire you accept the possible consequence of being killed by the flying body of someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt and that it's your fault for putting yourself in danger by entering New Hampshire?

            Killed by the flying body? Are people ejected from crashed vehicles so often that this is a problem?

            What universe do you live in?

            Stay home - you'll be safe there.

            • Front seat passengers/drivers being hit by the rear seat passengers.

              Doesn't take an ejection from the vehicle.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by kenh ( 9056 )

              Ever heard of 'safety glass"? Ever notice that when you kick out a car windshield, it is eventually kicked out as a sheet, because the plastic (?) layer embedded in the windshield is designed to keep "flying bodies" inside the car (and reduce the injury from broken glass if the windshield simply shattered on impact).

              Let's not forget, the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet has saved countless lives - not of the rider, but of the recipients of their donated organs after the crash.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jabuzz ( 182671 )

              Yep, killed by the flying body in the car. Try watching this seatbelt safety advert from the UK

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

              I happen to live in the real universe. You clearly live in some none existent utopia.

            • Um no. Do you know how many times a flying body in a car kills other people in the same car? It happens a lot with people not wearing seat belts. Two people who would have survived die, because their heads were crushed like melons when smashing into each other. Go ask an EMT, they'll tell you all about it.
        • Also, to keep this balanced, NH has to work like this because it is a very rural state with very little industry or commerce, and sparsely populated. Functionally a 1/3rd of the state is simply a suburb of Boston, so they largely just enjoy the benefits of Massachusetts without having to pay for it (in terms of access to markets, medical care, goods, services, etc.).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dargaud ( 518470 )
          So if you get hit by an uninsured driver, you are screwed... Must be a nice place.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kenh ( 9056 )

            YOUR auto insurance includes coverage to protect against uninsured drivers, it's a line-item on your insurance bill in most states.

            You act as if NH is the only state with uninsured drivers, trust me, there are a lot of uninsured drivers around the country.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dargaud ( 518470 )
              I'm not in the US anymore but in a country that has customary insurance. Still I know someone who got hit by an uninsured driver (all his documentation, ID, was fake) and his insurance didn't cover much of anything in that case.

        • Of course, NH’s attitude can, and does, lead to towns being taken over by bears.

        • while mostly all true, i would disagree with the "in practice, no one carries open". a number of times i have seen open carry in NH.
          hilariously once on a frozen lake during meredith's annual ice fishing derby. were you going to shoot a fish???

    • not going to have any effect anywhere else.

      If it sticks, it might. It's making it stick that I'm worried about. Youngn's probably don't remember the knife fight that was sparked when Massachusetts tried to adopt a mandate to use open file formats for its office software. They tried to mandate ODF as the state's official file format and Microsoft came back with a vengeance. Bought off politicians, smear campaigns. It was truly ugly. If I remember right, Mitt Romney was in the thick of things at the time, working against free software.

      The Grokla

  • "If a person is tried in a criminal case, they have the right to audit the source code of any proprietary software that collects evidence against them".

    The alleged source code, anyway. You would have to be very trusting to accept that the source code you are shown is the same as that which generated the software; or even that the software you are told was used was in fact the same software.

    But it's a good start.

    • I mean, sure. But if the state agency is handing falsified data to lawyers, then we have bigger problems than free software. And the kicker with that is, theres a damn good chance you'll get caught out. Software leaves traces. Idiot cop hands over some random open source cam code claiming the footage came from that. Lawyer looks at exif data and nope, its been edited in adobe. Theres gonna be explaining to do there. Editing stuff always leaves traces.

      Falsifying evidence in court is a [i]serious[/i] offence

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "Falsifying evidence in court is a [i]serious[/i] offence that that pretty much guarantees you time in prison."

        Unless you are a policeman or a prosecutor, then it is something to brag about, especially when you sustain it over an entire career.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          Or you work for the FBI:

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]

          In this case the former FBI attorney literally reversed the evidence he was given and handed it off to a FISA court (because apparently this lawyer knew better than the CIA if Carter Page worked for the CIA in an advisory capacity, so he "corrected" the evidence). Ordinarily this crime would have been caught very quickly, but since the accused was not aware of, let alone participating in the FISA court case, he had no way to know that the government w

    • Of course, since they already have the right to the data being used against them, they can recompile the code and see if it comes with the same conclusion when fed the same data.

    • The alleged source code, anyway. You would have to be very trusting to accept that the source code you are shown is the same as that which generated the software; or even that the software you are told was used was in fact the same software.

      You don't have to trust dick. If the code they give you, when you run it, doesn't yield the exact same result as what they used against you then the audit fails. Computers don't just change their results from instance to instance unless they're told to.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        or unless the results include time stamps, or unless the results are dependent on timing of events, or unless countless other things. The suggestion that software can be verified this way presumes that the inputs that generated the result can be reproduced exactly, something that itself is likely impossible given that the circumstances are being challenged in court to begin with.

        I'm getting a real feel for what that Unavailable Nickname is, and it isn't flattering.

        • or unless the results include time stamps, or unless the results are dependent on timing of events, or unless countless other things. The suggestion that software can be verified this way presumes that the inputs that generated the result can be reproduced exactly

          Yes, the data going into it is a part of the audit. If they fail to provide both the code and the state data to reproduce identical results then there was no actual audit. This applies many times over to things such as ANN-generated results wherein the training set is absolutely critical to the result even for the same inputs.

  • Proprietary software vendors (especially the likes of Microsoft and Oracle) will throw their vast resources at defeating it.

    Anyone who makes products that could in any way be used for evidence collection (e.g. breathalyzers, speed cameras, cell phone hacking tools, stingray type cellphone wiretapping gear, forensic analysis tools etc) will also throw their resources at stopping it.

    Law enforcement is going to fight against it (being forced to disclose the inner workings of their gear will just make it easier

    • Imagine a world where proprietary software doesn't exist, because it is obsolete; entire generations of people are taught to value freedom, and to staunchly defend it, helping each other learn and grow (and produce better software in the process, with less bugs, because people are now free to do that, without relying on some evil company)...

      Sounds more like a religion than anything else. As if open source doesn't have enough problems to deal with, now they have to invent more.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        Sounds like a song from a former Beatle.

        I'm not sure requiring traffic cameras to be running open source software (which doesn't currently exist) solves any of the problems you think it does.

        If passed in NH, things will get much worse as convicts and defendants start questioning every bit of IT involved in their prosecution without limit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      You say this will drain money from Microsoft and Oracle, and divert their lawyers from other work in their efforts to defeat it.

      Sounds ideal.

      • Instead they will hire more lawyers, and the demand will increase compensation and thus more supply of lawyers. This is the opposite of ideal.

  • NH already took a step toward this in 2011/2012 when we passed HB418 (https://www.gencourtmobile.com/2012/HB418/Text). That bill was then copied by Oklahoma bill HB 2197 and perhaps others. This new legislation certainly goes beyond that. And with respect to other comments, yes, NH does not require motorcycle helmets, or seatbelts, or car insurance, or income tax or sales tax. And we don't require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed. And there are no knife laws. yeah - scary - stay away.

  • So many problems... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PJ6 ( 1151747 ) on Sunday January 09, 2022 @08:58AM (#62156919)
    The list reads like a fever-dream. I agree with the sentiment but holy crap. I'm just going to pick on one of these-

    - Bans state agencies from purchasing non-free software if free software exists, for a given task....

    There are some crown-jewels in the free software landscape but most of it is half-assed, undocumented, and violently user-unfriendly.

    On one hand you have enforcement who could say there are no exceptions. But you obviously can't do that here. There absolutely has to be exceptions. And then on the other you'd have the state inventing requirements just to get out of using an open-source POS by inventing requirements, just like the do picking vendors in a bidding process that's supposed to be open.

    Clearly whoever wrote this has no state experience. This needs to be thought out a little more.

    • Exactly. There are some good ideas in this bill, but that's not one of them. I have trouble seeing open source passing just on the cost of migrating the existing tech. NH is a small state, but converting to Linux (probably either RHEL or Ubuntu) would involve significant expense and loss of functionality. Collaboration platforms (Microsoft 365, AWS Office, Slack, etc.) have at best mixed comparisons to open source features, and the lack of ubiquity of any of the latter creates problems of having to install

      • And in the end you're still using Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, etc CPUs with their non-free code and IME/PSP/Pluton backdoors anyway. Not to mention the rest of the non-free hardware in the system.

        Interoperation with open standards is important. That's the first step to enable people to work together regardless of their choice of tools. But the idea that the authoring applications and/or underlying operating system need to be "free software" is just half-assed and ignorant because underneath that it's still a whol

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      Where will the open source crime lab software come from?

      Bans state agencies from using proprietary software — maybe this could include schools, in the future!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xalqor ( 6762950 )

      It doesn't mean they have to use only open source software available today. The state can pay a contractor to develop the software they need and open source it. The state can then choose a different contractor to fix a bug or add a feature. They won't be locked in to a single vendor, people affected by the software will get some transparency, etc.

      If multiple states need similar software and they al they can all pitch in the funding, or some of them can be freeloaders and use open source software paid for by

  • Yeah let’s ban the state DOT from using engineering software like Ansys to so when they design a bridge there’s no analysis to ensure it won’t collapse.

    • There is such thing as open source structural analysis software. Currently it seems very primitive compared to the big commercial stuff, no surprise there, but increase demand and you'll see supply increased as well. And if multiple states needed such a tool, they could band together to fund development. There's nothing a corporation can do that can't be done by co-ops (and co-ops of co-ops if necessary.)

      • So your choices are A) spend $100K on working proprietary software that can be installed and used today, or; B) spend $100K funding development and hope that you get a suitable replacement in 6-12 months?

        • If they need the proprietary software, they probably have it already, and should keep using it while they fund development of a suitable OSS replacement — preferably based on existing resources, reducing development time and cost.

          • So they should spend $100K on proprietary software AND $100K on a replacement? Good luck getting that into your annual budget.
      • They are also not certified.
  • I see very little of what is covered by this law holding up well in a court. Unless provisions specifically override existing tort law, this is just going to end up generating billable hours for big law firms taking on the EFF, or whoever decides to take on the cases for the open source community
  • Some open source software is free as in speech. Some is free as in beer. Most of it is free as in shit.

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by nasch ( 598556 )

    Do they have any argument for why government should be getting involved in promoting and requiring free software, other than that they think free software is better? Pretty sure their argument is not about saving money.

    • Software with published source code, and published standards, can be modified or tuned for later access to the original documents, for legislative revision and for public access. Requiring the requester of Freedom of Information Act documents to have the proprietary software necessary to read the documentation is an unreasonable expectation. Requiring the government to buy annual licenses to access its own documents is also expensive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nasch ( 598556 )

        That would be an argument for open file formats. Which I think is excellent and important, but doesn't require libre software.

        Requiring the government to buy annual licenses to access its own documents is also expensive.

        Possibly. It is also possible that in certain scenarios the quality or suitability of free vs closed software is such that it is cheaper overall to use closed source. It's more complicated than just the price tag.

        • From direct experience with Microsoft formatted documents, it is not cheaper overall. The ability to access older documents is less reliable, and support is erratic. With the genuinely open document formats, accessing or recovering the original content was much less reliable. OOXML has helped since then: I've not personally had to extract such broken documents in the last 5 years, but I'd remain much more confident of the reliably open format of ODF.

  • Probably doomed to fail, but a nice gesture nevertheless. I, for one, do not welcome our corporate overlords....@#$%..SIGNAL LOST

  • is paved with good intentions. Good luck!

  • This was tried about 15 years ago, when Massachusetts legislated that all government documents must be published in open standard formats, to avoid the vendor lock-in and the the loss of compatible access to older documents that was so common with Microsoft Office formats. OOXML was created in a rush as a an ISO standard, with a great deal of ballot box stuffing and fraud in the approval process: even Microsoft does not follow the standard, which as drafted was incomplete and inconsistent. There are many ar

    • 15 years is a long time in tech. Back then it was still a chore to install linux/bsd - now any three-year-old can do it.
    • Who gives a shit though? Microsoft Office is widely panned for not even being compatible with itself between different versions so the minor incompatibilities you face by opening documents in Google Docs or LibreOffice are no different to what you see with different versions of MS Office.

      • Who gives a shit? The people who have to deal with decades of government document documents to perform their jobs. Land owners, taxpayers, hospitals, educators, and state contractors, for example, care about what format is accepted or mandated. Do you, for example, pay taxes or handle enough money involving your state that you'd care. I do personally, as do the people I work for and employ.

  • The slashdot paraphrasing doesn't match bill (Score:4, Informative)

    by clovis ( 4684 ) on Sunday January 09, 2022 @10:59AM (#62157075)

    The paraphrased summary is not accurate.
    The actual bill isn't as bad as the paraphrased summary.

    https://gencourt.state.nh.us/b... [state.nh.us]

    For example, the summary says:
    " Bans state agencies from using proprietary software — maybe this could include schools, in the future!"

    The proposed law says:
    "W:4 Mandatory Use of Proprietary Software Prohibited. No person in the state of New Hampshire shall be required to use proprietary software for any interaction with the government, including but not limited to: the filing or payment of taxes, remote appearance for court proceedings, the taking of standardized tests or the completion of coursework by school students, applying for or receiving unemployment benefits, or other similar benefits, unless the government agency has determined that the proprietary software is the only means available for the required interaction. In such cases, the agency shall post a notice of its determination and the use of proprietary software on the agency's website."

  • Imagine a world where proprietary software doesn't exist

    I see the benefit of having more open source software, but isn't this a bit socialist? Shouldn't people be able to create something, own it, and sell it? Why is ownership necessarily bad?

    • I see the benefit of having more open source software, but isn't this a bit socialist? Shouldn't people be able to create something, own it, and sell it? Why is ownership necessarily bad?

      Software peaked and has entered a similar trend to fashion and cars: remove features to create styles/fads, recycle them every few years to get people to buy more, force everyone into subscriptions, repeat. We already know how to do what we want computers to do day-to-day, each new bandwagon is just a watered down version of the complete set. Existing products like those from Apple and Microsoft are now notorious not just for being shit, but for removing features people liked and sticking in ones they dis

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Software peaked and has entered a similar trend to fashion and cars: remove features to create styles/fads, recycle them every few years to get people to buy more, force everyone into subscriptions, repeat.

        The problem is that in a great many situations free software is worse, if it had all the features people needed and was free of charge (by virtue of being free of restriction) then people would use it en masse rather than paying for an alternative with less features. Switching from Windows to Linux isn't moving to some eutopia, you just trade Windows problems for a bunch of Linux problems on whichever of the hundreds of different distributions you may have chosen. So many hardware vendors have tried and fai

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xalqor ( 6762950 )

      isn't this a bit socialist?

      Are there public schools, fire stations, and courthouses where you live? Does the government pay a single company to build and maintain those buildings forever? Or does it pay one contractor to build it, and later when they need work done they find a qualified contractor at that time? Would you call them socialist because they pay incrementally for work that is done on that asset? Why do you think software is different?

      Shouldn't people be able to create something, own it, and s

      • I don't think software is different; I think government software is a horrible and confusing mess, just like its schools, courthouses, roads, etc.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xalqor ( 6762950 )

          The answer to your question is "no", it's not socialist. Socialism is about having all the people own the means of production. This proposal to require use of open source software in government doesn't change who owns the means of production and it doesn't create any handout -- software companies would still do what they do with their privately owned means of production and charge the government for their services.

          What they don't get to do is lock the government in to their services, because with open sourc

          • The summary claimed a result of this will be to get rid of all proprietary software. Assuming that's what the legislators are trying to achieve (I don't think it is, I think the OP is leaping to conclusions), then this would be socialist; software that's freely available to all and not controlled by the government (communism).

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by xalqor ( 6762950 )
              The bullet point summary of the bill was correct but then there was a lot of wishful thinking about a world without proprietary software. I responded to your comments in light of what the actual bill would do, not what the submitter wishes it would do.
  • The ultimate philosophical and political transgression is hypocrisy. I find the philosophy of "let's make a law against" wildly incongruous with the tenets that gave rise to open-source and free software. Simply, let people choose. If we start making laws, no matter the apparent nobility of the goal, to favor one idea over another, then we have lost before we have even started. While there may be some concepts outlined in the bill worth pursuing, I find the overall thinking behind the proposition immature i

    • You don't believe proprietary software owners tilt the playing field? You somehow didn't notice the part of the proposed law allowing defendants to protect their constitutional rights by examining software used to gather (or create) alleged evidence against them?

      Please save your libertarian crap for somewhere else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xalqor ( 6762950 )

      Simply, let people choose.

      Individual choice is for individual things. This law constrains publicly funded organizations, not private individuals or companies. The people of New Hampshire, through their elected representatives, decided that when the state pays for software, it needs to be open source.

      If we start making laws, no matter the apparent nobility of the goal, to favor one idea over another...

      That's what laws are. They divide the world into what is allowed and what is prohibited, favoring one over

  • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Have we asked ze Germans about their experience?

  • So the "free" movement wants to take away the government's choice of software. There are a number of libre offerings they are quite good, but also plenty of areas where there's a reason commercial products are dominant (e.g. no way around the fact that Libre office is ugly and less functional they Office).

  • I agree that state agencies should consider free software when possible. But to ban proprietary software would prevent agencies from choosing the best, most effective, and secure solutions when free software cannot fill the requirements or does not exist. It also ignores the trend toward hosted applications.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close