[HN Gopher] New Hampshire on the cusp of enshrining software fre...
___________________________________________________________________
New Hampshire on the cusp of enshrining software freedom into law
Author : leahlibre
Score : 166 points
Date : 2023-02-12 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (libreboot.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (libreboot.org)
| leahlibre wrote:
| 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.
| CharlesW wrote:
| 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?
| TylerE wrote:
| 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.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| 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.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The problem is new style PDF forms implemented with JS. Old
| style PDF forms should be handled by open source readers.
| smeej wrote:
| 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.
| brk wrote:
| 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.
| NickNaraghi wrote:
| How would this affect something like Tornado Cash?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Calling this "libre software" instead of "free software" seems
| very self-serving
|
| > You can't become a competent programmer by using Windows or
| MacOS. Linux or BSD are your only real choice, because that's
| where all the interesting development happens.
|
| uh excuse me?
| asoneth wrote:
| > Calling this "libre software" instead of "free software"
| seems very self-serving
|
| How so?
|
| When talking to a non-technical audience my experience has been
| that the term "free software" is misinterpreted more often than
| not. If a name always requires an ancillary explanation ("...as
| in freedom, not beer") and collides with a common and wildly
| different meaning then it is not a good name.
|
| "Open Source" advocates realized early on that the name was a
| fatal liability and switched to a significantly better one.
|
| Trying to rebrand free (as in freedom) software movement as
| "libre" is probably too little, too late but I don't think it
| hurts to try.
| nhooyr wrote:
| He's not wrong. Certainly when it comes to the full scope of
| being a programmer, Linux and BSD are your only real options.
| You can't easily add a new filesystem or screw with the kernel
| on macOS/windows without having to buy hundreds of dollars
| worth of their books and attend conferences.
|
| There isn't really any good detailed up to date documentation
| online about either. The docs for linux/bsd aren't perfect
| either but at least there you can always fall back on the
| source. That makes a massive difference.
|
| For example, one of the reasons I switched from Java to Go back
| in the day is that I could actually read the source code of the
| APIs I was using. So I could fully understand the standard
| library whereas in Java it was all obfuscated bytecode. I'm not
| sure if the situation has changed with OpenJDK but my point
| stands, an open core system is far superior platform for
| learning.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Well, you cannot directly "screw with the kernel" on Windows.
| I am not sure how that is keeping you from growing as a
| developer exactly though. You can write your own kernel from
| scratch using Windows as your host platform. And, of course,
| you can build a filesystem to use with Windows. You can even
| make it Open Source as well which many have.
|
| If you do want to "screw" with the system on Windows, one
| option would be to replace the MS stuff one DLL at a time.
| You might take a DLL from ReactOS for example and make it
| work with your version of Windows, extending or altering it
| as you desire.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's not that Linux/BSD don't offer the most freedom (though
| as many have pointed out MacOS is essentially BSD with an
| Apple WM/GUI). It's the snobbishness of saying 'only ____
| makes you a TWUE PWOGWAMMER'.
|
| You can see this to some extent in other professions.
| Cardiologists and neurosurgeons get paid big bucks because
| their job is life or death stuff and requires skill and
| innovation. But would you want to work with a cardiologist
| that goes around sneering at every other kind of medical
| professional and saying they're not real doctors? Of course
| not, because they're assholes and when people like that screw
| up they'll blame their colleagues or patient rather than
| admit fault.
|
| Back in the tech context, you can pursue authenticity into
| absurdity. You're not a real programmer unless you use
| (language). You're not a real programmer unless you
| contribute the language. You're not a real programmer unless
| you get into kernel hacking. Sure, you call yourself a
| programmer, but do you even assembler? Programming? Sorry, I
| design chips. Chips? Do you even basic circuit designs. Me, I
| roll my own capacitors built from carbon nanotubes...and so
| on up through materials science, physics, and mathematics.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| of course they're wrong, there are thousands of competent
| programmers working on windows and macos, I love linux I just
| hate this kind of hyperbolic self-aggrandizing
| jt2190 wrote:
| > For example, one of the reasons I switched from Java to Go
| back in the day is that I could actually read the source code
| of the APIs I was using.
|
| What APIs were you using? I haven't used Java in a while but
| one of the main attractions for me was that I could download
| and read the source code. (I'd been in the closed-source
| Microsoft ecosystem before that.)
| imoverclocked wrote:
| > ... 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.
| lalopalota wrote:
| > 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.
| thewebcount wrote:
| 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.
| traverseda wrote:
| 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.
| lostmsu wrote:
| > You can't become a competent programmer by using Windows or
| MacOS.
|
| Not gonna fly with over 50% of engineers. For a good reason too
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| > 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.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| >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.
| cjpearson wrote:
| 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.
| default-kramer wrote:
| Yeah, these estimates blew me away.
| https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=188...
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| leereeves wrote:
| > $1000 per citizen
|
| 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.
| cjpearson wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0] https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=
| 188...
| pessimizer wrote:
| > 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Don't expect government to go open source. Use open source to
| supersede government functionality.
| nerdjon wrote:
| This feels like a case that I really need an article explaining
| this not from their prospective.
|
| 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.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Programmers have got to be the stupidest profession with regard
| to money.
|
| Every single profession, be they doctors, lawyers, actors,
| artists, tries to increase the value of their work. Programmers
| go out of their way to devalue the result of their work
| (software), with the result that the main ways to make money from
| software is either to use it to power ads, use it to power
| commerce (Amazon), or use it to power hardware (Apple) but not
| really to sell software itself.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yet somehow, they're much more monetarily successful than the
| other professions, both individually and as a field.
|
| > _Programmers go out of their way to devalue the result of
| their work (software)_
|
| Here's where I think you're wrong. Programmers, like doctors
| and lawyers and actors and other professionals, are ultimately
| being paid for their _labor_ , not the result of it. Result is
| the desirable thing, but from the professional's point of view,
| it's just a side effect.
|
| You may think otherwise when looking at e.g. doctors and
| lawyers, but that's because the results is almost always one-
| off and thus impossible to copy. When a doctor diagnoses and
| cures my condition, it's not something I can pirate and reuse
| the next time, or give to a friend. When a lawyer writes a
| document for me, I may be able to reuse or share that document,
| but the actual value is in that lawyer's _signature_ - or
| _provenance_ in general.
|
| Software is free on the margin. So are musical pieces, movies,
| TV shows, etc., which is why there's a lot of whining of
| artists (and/or their publishers) about the Internet killing
| them, etc. But, again, those artifacts are just side effects
| for the profession. Money is being made on selling labor.
|
| From that point of view, if you ignore the utopian ideals and
| the general pay-it-forward morality, FLOSS is still perfectly
| sensible thing for the profession: software is free on the
| margin, therefore worthless to sell directly - but it makes
| sense for you to make more of it, because it's a _credible
| signal of your competence_. That is, the way most people make
| money on FLOSS contributions is by using those contributions to
| build reputation and relationships, and then leveraging those
| to increase the amount of money they can charge for their
| labor.
|
| Or, in other words, at the individual level, the software
| profession lives by a generalized form of CV-driven
| development.
| lukifer wrote:
| Perhaps you've never heard of Doctors Without Borders, pro
| bono, community theater, or the Creative Commons?
|
| There is more to life than merely maximizing one's bargaining
| leverage.
| pdntspa wrote:
| There are so many people out there who are now technology
| practitioners because they had a chance to self-train on the
| same tools that professionals use, which are freely available
| at no cost since paid software is vastly more expensive than
| they could ever hope to afford.
|
| Programmers aren't stupid, we are fortunate that we can make
| our living using the software we build rather than being forced
| to sell it.
|
| Open-source software is a gift to the world and humanity. But
| of course there is going to be the peanut gallery that thinks
| everything should be profitized.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Actually, most of these companies provide their commercial
| tools either free or deeply discounted to students so they
| can learn.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| Yep. The ideology around foss developed as it did precisely
| because it's original proponents did not have to make a living
| from developing and selling software, but were instead
| academics who already had an income from elsewhere (tenure,
| grants, mummy and daddy etc.)
| leepowers wrote:
| _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.
|
| [1]
| https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=188...
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| I'm tempted to say this is a result of the politics of our times,
| but I guess extremism has been around forever.
|
| In this case they are taking what is, at its core, may be a
| pretty good idea, and then they load it down with rhetoric. And
| hence guarantee to turn off people with slightly different
| opinions, and confuse people who haven't the slightest clue what
| they are talking about.
|
| Given that nearly everyone in the Western World works for some
| kind of corporation, starting off by calling them evil is not
| going to get you very far.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| I don't see new benefits to users as the user already has a
| choice in what computer they buy and what software to use. As far
| as I know, schools provide students with computers and if you use
| your own there are already ways to work with different file
| formats. I use OSS on MacOS all the time, works fine.
|
| US government data.gov provides many formats that require neither
| Apple nor Windows. File your taxes using a pen, envelope and
| stamp or use the online sites - no proprietary software needed.
| Use forms online through their web portal. I'm just not seeing
| where the friction is here to require a law.
|
| >>If no laws exist that protect libre software projects, then
| they are vulnerable.
|
| How so? People picking MacOS/Win over Linux because it's easier
| for them is a choice we already have. If you want to mess around
| with Linux, knock yourself out, but my parents won't. It also
| seem to want to force MacOS and Windows source code to be
| available for anyone to browse (poach)
|
| >>because if states stop relying on proprietary software
| licenses, the money they currently spend on that can instead be
| spent elsewhere, or on paying programmers
|
| That is what I'm already assuming I'm doing by buying MacOS
| because Apple pays the programmers that create their software
| that I choose to buy. So I'm supporting the programmers that made
| the software I use, as are the states when they pay Microsoft or
| who ever.
|
| A less directly related concern I have is that it reads as an
| outside group meddling with US law in order to force/manipulate a
| cascading effect, presumably because whatever country they are
| from is going to follow the US? Or on a less conspiral thought,
| it's abusing US law for something better severed by Marketing.
|
| >>I once again call to action, any person that lives in New
| Hampshire or the surrounding states in the USA. Your
| participation could help secure the rights of all libre software
| users and developers, well into the future. I myself do not live
| in the US, so I'm hoping that my American readers will listen
| well to what I have to say. [*note i appreciate the disclosure]
|
| >>...it will provide the libre software movement a foot in the
| door, that could lead to greater reform at a later date, and
| strengthen the entire movement. This is because of the knock-on
| effect it would have: as more people benefit from it, more states
| (in the US) and countries outside of the US may follow,
| implementing similar laws.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-12 23:00 UTC)