A hearing for a bill will take place in New Hampshire on February 16th, 2023, for a bill that, if passed, will require state agencies to accommodate libre software users in public-facing applications, so that people do not have to use proprietary software to access state services on the internet.
Your help is needed. More information is available in the linked article.
I read the article, but didn’t see a list of the proprietary software that’s required to interact with New Hampshirite state agencies. Are there examples of this problem?
I'm not sure of New Hampshire's stage agencies, but the most common problem I've experiences interacting with government agencies is PDFs. The format is fairly well-designed to be easy to read so many libre software alternatives can view PDFs, but forms are another story. If a PDF form hasn't been tested in libre readers, it would be unwise to assume that it works in libre readers (or even some proprietary readers). And if testing discovers that it doesn't work, getting it to work isn't necessarily possible with the PDF editing tools available, as making their editors compatible with libre readers isn't exactly a priority for Adobe.
It’s not as bad currently, but 10 years ago it wasn’t that unusual to find things like government and bank websites using freaking ActiveX.
These days I would imagine it means things like not publishing videos with (only) proprietary codecs, or using some sort of non-standard non-open 2fa or something.
With all due respect, speaking as someone not in New Hampshire, your (and the article's) request to me and others like myself is a subversion of democracy.
This New Hampshire state bill is being deliberated in the New Hampshire state legislature, to be eventually voted on by New Hampshire state legislators voted in by and representing the people of the state of New Hampshire.
As a strictly state matter, any influence from outside the state of New Hampshire is a subversion of democracy in the state.
It's not asking us to falsify votes or commit fraud or anything, just asking for people to sing the virtues of this approach.
As an analogy, say Colorado passed a law that New Hampshire is also considering passing. In that case would you consider it interference for people from Colorado to speak in New Hampshire saying "You guys shouldn't pass this, it worked out poorly for us in Colorado"?
Trade groups in the US routinely try to influence state legislation outside the state where they are domiciled, and sometimes outside the country.
For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), founded by Microsoft, operates in over 30 countries. It engages in both lobbying and litigation, around the US and around the world.
Individual companies engage in lobbying outside of trade groups as well.
The irony of the parent comment is that "tech" companies, the ones that disseminate proprietary software, have done and continue to do more to "subvert democracy" than any individual in history has ever done, and they do this more or less free from civil liability or criminal prosecution.
This bill is interesting because, as it currently reads, it does not force the state to use non-proprietary software. It is not stopping the state from purchasing Microsoft software licenses, for example. Instead it prohibits the state from forcing the residents of NH to use proprietary software in order to interact with the state agencies:
"21-W:1 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 of proprietary software use, the agency shall post a notice of its determination and the use of proprietary software on the agency's website."
This is a topic that comes up on HN with moderate frequency. For example, a website tries to force the user to use a specific client, which is effectively proprietary software under the control of a "tech" company.
The client might be a Big Tech advertising-sponsored web browser that no one except Big Tech employees ever audits, modifies or compiles, regardless of whether the source code is available. It might be a closed mobile app that pins TLS certificates to stop anyone from observing what data it records about its user and sends to the "tech" company, sometimes called "phoning home" to the "mothership".
The website might use something like Cloudflare in the name of "protection" primarily to restrict clients to a certain browsers controlled by Big Tech that can be leveraged against users (ad targets) for data collection, surveillance and advertising.
That price is going to scare away most voters. $1000 per citizen for something that few people care about.
You could argue that the cost estimation is a worst-case scenario. It assumes that 90% of the affected software will be made compliant, but it's also possible that they just use proprietary exception for most applications. It would cost much less in that case, but it would do so by abandoning the purpose of the bill.
The bill died in a unanimous vote last time around, and it's not going to anywhere close to success this time either. However some other parts of the 2022 bill (considering libre solutions for new applications, limiting NDAs and non-competes, allow audits of software used in criminal cases) are more feasible and might stand a chance if they're also split into new bills.
How did they reach that figure? $1.4 billion dollars seems like far too much.
Edit: Interesting. Their methodology talks about rewriting all the state's public-facing server side applications to be open source. (Hence the cost.)
I thought the bill was just requiring that the public be able to use libre browsers and apps on their own devices to access state services, not that the state's server code had to be open source.
Suggestion: Pass a bill requiring all new or upgraded systems to be non-proprietary. Then it has no current-year budgetary cost.
The problem with doing it this way is you're accounting for the bill as the cost of upgrading all government systems [to non-proprietary ones], which is on the same order as the cost of upgrading all government systems in general -- something that happens eventually but on its own budget.
So require upgrades to be to non-proprietary systems. Then you just wait. In maybe ten or fifteen years pass a bill requiring any remaining proprietary systems to be replaced, which by then will be fewer of them and by then will be the ones that most need to be replaced.
You can read their methodology in the bill text [0]. In short, there are 271 applications they found that must be brought into compliance and estimated the timeline and staffing costs based on similar recently completed projects.
I don't think the bill requires the server side to be open source. I think it is sufficient as long as the client side can use libre software to interact with the government. (But this is not explicitly stated in any of the links I followed.)
Another comment mentions fillable PDFs not working in non-Adobe software. This seems like the most likely culprit to me. And in general, if someone has to go back over the entire surface area of an application and re-test everything to find all the quirks like this, I can start to understand how that huge cost estimate might make sense.
I guess there are all kinds of aspects of the government I'm not even aware of, but still... Everything I see is always browser-based with maybe some PDFs. What even is "NH FIRST (statewide ERP)"? Why does the general public interact with an ERP at all? I'm assuming this bill means that individuals should not be compelled to use proprietary software, but if it includes businesses also then the price tag makes more sense.
> You could argue that the cost estimation is a worst-case scenario.
It probably should be. What might improve the bill is trying to get a similar bill passed in a few other state legislatures and working with them as a group to lower costs.
The bill pegs the cost at nearly $300M/year for 5 years, with the funding coming from the state's "General Fund". According to the State of NH, that fund supports about $1.7B in total spending. There's no way a state with such a limited fund and desire for taxes is going to spend such a large percentage of the budget on that effort.
"Bans state agencies from using proprietary software - maybe this could include schools, in the future!"
"Bans state agencies from purchasing proprietary software if libre software exists, for a given task"
That seems... excessive and way to heavy handed. Doesn't that reduce the ability of a specific agency to choose either the best or just what people are familiar with (which means what people will be effective with) software for a given task/department?
Or am I completely misreading what this is saying?
Advocating and educating people on open source or free available software is a good thing, but straight up requiring its use if it exists seems really bad and kinda counter to the culture that this kind of software should have.
DoIT estimates the project will take at least 5 years to make the necessary changes resulting in a total state general fund cost of approximately $1.47 Billion .... Total Annual Cost $293,894,620
The Department states historically the cost of implementing a new application, whether replacing an existing application or implementing applications where none existed before, is three to seven times the cost of purchasing the software licenses. [1]
Do the people of New Hampshire believe so strongly in using non-proprietary software that they're willing to take on this extra cost? Is there widespread support and understanding of free or libre software amongst the population?
My experience has been that people have a transactional relationship to software, not a values-based one. Which is the main reason the various free software movements have yet to gain wide spread traction. People don't seem to care about how software is created and how it is licensed but whether it meets a particular need. (I need to file my taxes. I want to listen to music. I want to book a reservation, etc.) The challenge is not necessarily to "make software free" but to first get people to view software through a holistic, non-transactional lens.
The hurdle for this legislation will be convincing legislators to spend $1.47bn on a software replacement that doesn't add any additional features. I mean, are citizens really going to care that the web-based interface they use to file their taxes is no longer using proprietary software under the hood? If they're viewing software through the transactional lens then this plan will seem wasteful and non-productive.
Was a NH resident for years (recent ones, even). Can't think of a single time I had to interact with a state agency that required proprietary software. It would stand out if I had.
The closest I can even think of is if they're using Zoom for remote hearings? Never had to have a hearing about anything.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Same.
Former NH resident and have been a Linux / free software proponent for decades. For the most have not even had a functional Windows machine most of the time. Do not ever recall a scenario where I encountered some kind of proprietary software. We had multiple houses, cars, boats, dogs, other property. All kinds of things that I had to register or deal with the state on annually and can’t recall any issues.
>The closest I can even think of is if they're using Zoom for remote hearings?
As a Linux user, I don't even have a problem with this personally. Zoom is a free download, or you can use it in a browser (the native application works a lot better though). It may not be FOSS, but it doesn't keep me from using Linux, or require me to pay anything to attend a meeting. The FOSS alternatives to Zoom honestly are not good, especially if you're dealing with some kind of meeting with dozens or hundreds of participants. Even MS Teams works OK for Linux users; you just use it in a browser window.
With so much stuff working in browsers these days, OS choice just isn't the problem it used to be 15-20 years ago. The only thing I can think of offhand where I had a problem was with a fillable PDF form I had to use for work a year or two ago: only actual Adobe software would work. I ended up having to use Wine, and even then had a lot of trouble.
There are many web-based things that technically require Internet Explorer, even though other browsers seem to work fine. The real issue is likely that most of the things were built with IE in mind and only formally tested on IE. I feel like the real first step is simply to audit the functionality of these things in various browsers to see if they actually work properly or not.
As the state whose official motto is "live free or die", this might be the only place in the US where things like this may get noticed.
That said, given how I've been mainly on the Windows side for the past decades and that hasn't stopped me from learning or being in control (although that is increasingly being taken away by the excuse of "security"), maybe enshrining the right to reverse-engineer and modify proprietary software is more important.
Ironically, the Libreboot logo is remarkably reminiscent of John Deere's.
>16 February 2023, 1PM: prohibiting, with limited exceptions, state agencies from requiring use of proprietary software in interactions with the public (house bill: HB 617-FN)
Seems pretty basic to me. What's concerning is that it isn't already law everywhere.
> … alongside the rest of humanity in a collective development effort, as opposed to the alternative where we would be restricted by companies like Microsoft or Apple, who only care about controlling us to make money.
I was optimistic until I read this sentence.
So, does this bill mean that products like MS Office can’t be used in schools because it would force students to use proprietary software? Is it just targeting websites that use extensions that are only usable in a certain browser?
The stated goals seem good at first glance but then the justifications go off the rails for me.
> You can’t become a competent programmer by using Windows or MacOS.
MacOS is BSD based and runs most OSS so, I’m not even sure how they are coming up to this point.
Similarly, Windows has been used for development and teaching development at universities for a long time.
> So, does this bill mean that products like MS Office can’t be used in schools because it would force students to use proprietary software? Is it just targeting websites that use extensions that are only usable in a certain browser?
Isn’t it rather that schools can’t force students to use proprietary software?
They can have an Office license but they also have to maintain (or pay someone to) something like LibreOffice.
I spent a year in a German university and all the computers could boot up to windows, Linux or BSD depending on the user’s preference.
>
So, does this bill mean that products like MS Office can’t be used in schools ...
It means that the courts, government, etc. cannot require a form or document be submitted in Word format; their website can't require Internet Explorer or Chrome to be usable; stuff like that.
>So, does this bill mean that products like MS Office can’t be used in schools because it would force students to use proprietary software? Is it just targeting websites that use extensions that are only usable in a certain browser?
Wouldn't that be sensible though?
If the software is gratis and FOSS, then all the children can use it in whatever context they want.
This is not true for MacOS or Windows. People may not own MacOS devices or have the money for the licenses.
If a private company tricked your school into training you on their stack... that's not an education, it's an ad (and corruption to boot). If you job wants to use MATLAB, they can train you on MATLAB. Your python/octave/whatever skills will transfer.
Agreed. This was such a stupid take that it’s going to turn off most who read it. I think the goal of the bill is great, but I wouldn’t take it seriously after reading this person’s take on it and would assume it was put forth by ideologues who have unrealistic expectations of how people actually live.
The author of this blog post does not appear to be in any way affiliated with the author of this bill, or even live in the US for that matter.
The head of the libreboot project has been involved in some controversy in the past, and I'm presuming this was written by her. It's not surprising to see her phrase this in some indelicate ways, given past hot takes, but I don't think you should let that affect your opinion on the bill itself too much.
Readit News
Your help is needed. More information is available in the linked article.
These days I would imagine it means things like not publishing videos with (only) proprietary codecs, or using some sort of non-standard non-open 2fa or something.
With all due respect, speaking as someone not in New Hampshire, your (and the article's) request to me and others like myself is a subversion of democracy.
This New Hampshire state bill is being deliberated in the New Hampshire state legislature, to be eventually voted on by New Hampshire state legislators voted in by and representing the people of the state of New Hampshire.
As a strictly state matter, any influence from outside the state of New Hampshire is a subversion of democracy in the state.
Corporations from other states and countries who don't like this bill make use of that. Proponents can too.
As an analogy, say Colorado passed a law that New Hampshire is also considering passing. In that case would you consider it interference for people from Colorado to speak in New Hampshire saying "You guys shouldn't pass this, it worked out poorly for us in Colorado"?
For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), founded by Microsoft, operates in over 30 countries. It engages in both lobbying and litigation, around the US and around the world. Individual companies engage in lobbying outside of trade groups as well.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240234078/Government-op...
The irony of the parent comment is that "tech" companies, the ones that disseminate proprietary software, have done and continue to do more to "subvert democracy" than any individual in history has ever done, and they do this more or less free from civil liability or criminal prosecution.
This bill is interesting because, as it currently reads, it does not force the state to use non-proprietary software. It is not stopping the state from purchasing Microsoft software licenses, for example. Instead it prohibits the state from forcing the residents of NH to use proprietary software in order to interact with the state agencies:
"21-W:1 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 of proprietary software use, the agency shall post a notice of its determination and the use of proprietary software on the agency's website."
This is a topic that comes up on HN with moderate frequency. For example, a website tries to force the user to use a specific client, which is effectively proprietary software under the control of a "tech" company.
The client might be a Big Tech advertising-sponsored web browser that no one except Big Tech employees ever audits, modifies or compiles, regardless of whether the source code is available. It might be a closed mobile app that pins TLS certificates to stop anyone from observing what data it records about its user and sends to the "tech" company, sometimes called "phoning home" to the "mothership".
The website might use something like Cloudflare in the name of "protection" primarily to restrict clients to a certain browsers controlled by Big Tech that can be leveraged against users (ad targets) for data collection, surveillance and advertising.
https://www.cloudflare.com/solutions/protect-websites-applic...
Deleted Comment
You could argue that the cost estimation is a worst-case scenario. It assumes that 90% of the affected software will be made compliant, but it's also possible that they just use proprietary exception for most applications. It would cost much less in that case, but it would do so by abandoning the purpose of the bill.
The bill died in a unanimous vote last time around, and it's not going to anywhere close to success this time either. However some other parts of the 2022 bill (considering libre solutions for new applications, limiting NDAs and non-competes, allow audits of software used in criminal cases) are more feasible and might stand a chance if they're also split into new bills.
How did they reach that figure? $1.4 billion dollars seems like far too much.
Edit: Interesting. Their methodology talks about rewriting all the state's public-facing server side applications to be open source. (Hence the cost.)
I thought the bill was just requiring that the public be able to use libre browsers and apps on their own devices to access state services, not that the state's server code had to be open source.
The problem with doing it this way is you're accounting for the bill as the cost of upgrading all government systems [to non-proprietary ones], which is on the same order as the cost of upgrading all government systems in general -- something that happens eventually but on its own budget.
So require upgrades to be to non-proprietary systems. Then you just wait. In maybe ten or fifteen years pass a bill requiring any remaining proprietary systems to be replaced, which by then will be fewer of them and by then will be the ones that most need to be replaced.
[0] https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=188...
Another comment mentions fillable PDFs not working in non-Adobe software. This seems like the most likely culprit to me. And in general, if someone has to go back over the entire surface area of an application and re-test everything to find all the quirks like this, I can start to understand how that huge cost estimate might make sense.
I guess there are all kinds of aspects of the government I'm not even aware of, but still... Everything I see is always browser-based with maybe some PDFs. What even is "NH FIRST (statewide ERP)"? Why does the general public interact with an ERP at all? I'm assuming this bill means that individuals should not be compelled to use proprietary software, but if it includes businesses also then the price tag makes more sense.
It probably should be. What might improve the bill is trying to get a similar bill passed in a few other state legislatures and working with them as a group to lower costs.
Deleted Comment
Freedom isn't free.
On here https://libreboot.org/news/usa-libre.html one of the examples given:
"Bans state agencies from using proprietary software - maybe this could include schools, in the future!"
"Bans state agencies from purchasing proprietary software if libre software exists, for a given task"
That seems... excessive and way to heavy handed. Doesn't that reduce the ability of a specific agency to choose either the best or just what people are familiar with (which means what people will be effective with) software for a given task/department?
Or am I completely misreading what this is saying?
Advocating and educating people on open source or free available software is a good thing, but straight up requiring its use if it exists seems really bad and kinda counter to the culture that this kind of software should have.
The government wanting to use libre software and passing a bill saying that it shall use libre software is not that.
This sounds like it is requiring the use libra software even if the alternative is superior.
The Department states historically the cost of implementing a new application, whether replacing an existing application or implementing applications where none existed before, is three to seven times the cost of purchasing the software licenses. [1]
Do the people of New Hampshire believe so strongly in using non-proprietary software that they're willing to take on this extra cost? Is there widespread support and understanding of free or libre software amongst the population?
My experience has been that people have a transactional relationship to software, not a values-based one. Which is the main reason the various free software movements have yet to gain wide spread traction. People don't seem to care about how software is created and how it is licensed but whether it meets a particular need. (I need to file my taxes. I want to listen to music. I want to book a reservation, etc.) The challenge is not necessarily to "make software free" but to first get people to view software through a holistic, non-transactional lens.
The hurdle for this legislation will be convincing legislators to spend $1.47bn on a software replacement that doesn't add any additional features. I mean, are citizens really going to care that the web-based interface they use to file their taxes is no longer using proprietary software under the hood? If they're viewing software through the transactional lens then this plan will seem wasteful and non-productive.
[1] https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=188...
If it doesn't provide any benefits, then this is a philosophical change. Seems almost like a case for separation of church and state.
The closest I can even think of is if they're using Zoom for remote hearings? Never had to have a hearing about anything.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
As a Linux user, I don't even have a problem with this personally. Zoom is a free download, or you can use it in a browser (the native application works a lot better though). It may not be FOSS, but it doesn't keep me from using Linux, or require me to pay anything to attend a meeting. The FOSS alternatives to Zoom honestly are not good, especially if you're dealing with some kind of meeting with dozens or hundreds of participants. Even MS Teams works OK for Linux users; you just use it in a browser window.
With so much stuff working in browsers these days, OS choice just isn't the problem it used to be 15-20 years ago. The only thing I can think of offhand where I had a problem was with a fillable PDF form I had to use for work a year or two ago: only actual Adobe software would work. I ended up having to use Wine, and even then had a lot of trouble.
Suffice it to say this problem doesn't require a government solution.
That said, given how I've been mainly on the Windows side for the past decades and that hasn't stopped me from learning or being in control (although that is increasingly being taken away by the excuse of "security"), maybe enshrining the right to reverse-engineer and modify proprietary software is more important.
Ironically, the Libreboot logo is remarkably reminiscent of John Deere's.
Seems pretty basic to me. What's concerning is that it isn't already law everywhere.
I was optimistic until I read this sentence.
So, does this bill mean that products like MS Office can’t be used in schools because it would force students to use proprietary software? Is it just targeting websites that use extensions that are only usable in a certain browser?
The stated goals seem good at first glance but then the justifications go off the rails for me.
> You can’t become a competent programmer by using Windows or MacOS.
MacOS is BSD based and runs most OSS so, I’m not even sure how they are coming up to this point.
Similarly, Windows has been used for development and teaching development at universities for a long time.
Isn’t it rather that schools can’t force students to use proprietary software? They can have an Office license but they also have to maintain (or pay someone to) something like LibreOffice.
I spent a year in a German university and all the computers could boot up to windows, Linux or BSD depending on the user’s preference.
It means that the courts, government, etc. cannot require a form or document be submitted in Word format; their website can't require Internet Explorer or Chrome to be usable; stuff like that.
Wouldn't that be sensible though?
If the software is gratis and FOSS, then all the children can use it in whatever context they want.
This is not true for MacOS or Windows. People may not own MacOS devices or have the money for the licenses.
If a private company tricked your school into training you on their stack... that's not an education, it's an ad (and corruption to boot). If you job wants to use MATLAB, they can train you on MATLAB. Your python/octave/whatever skills will transfer.
Deleted Comment
The head of the libreboot project has been involved in some controversy in the past, and I'm presuming this was written by her. It's not surprising to see her phrase this in some indelicate ways, given past hot takes, but I don't think you should let that affect your opinion on the bill itself too much.
Not gonna fly with over 50% of engineers. For a good reason too