New Hampshire on the cusp of enshrining software freedom into law

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.

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.

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.

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.