New Hampshire Passes 'Open Source Bill'

Plugh writes "In a victory for transparency and openness in government, and saving tax dollars, New Hampshire has passed HB418. State agencies are now required by law to consider open source software when acquiring software, and to promote the use of open data formats."

Comments

Their definition of "open source"

[MrEricSir]

It's interesting to see how a government defines what "open source" means. Some of the wording might actually restrict certain packages, for example:

Is documented, so that anyone can write software that can read and interpret the complete semantics of any data file stored in the data format;

As a professional open source developer myself, I have to admit that documentation isn't often a strong point of open source, and internal file formats are no exception.

Re:To what degree?

[Anonymous Coward]

I. For all software acquisitions, each state agency, in consultation with the department of information technology, shall:

(a) Consider whether proprietary or open source software offers the most cost effective software solution for the agency, based on consideration of all associated acquisition, support, maintenance, and training costs;

(b) Except as provided in subparagraphs (d) and (e), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis, based on consideration of the cost factors as described in subparagraph (a);

(c) Provide a brief analysis of the purchase decision, including consideration of the cost factors in subparagraph (a), to the chief information officer;

(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage; and

(e) Avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification of a state agency’s computer.

II. All state procurement documents related to software acquisitions shall include language that requires adherence to this section.

Re:To what degree?

[Bloopie]

I know this is Slashdot and people will rush to post moronic questions just to get first post that would be easily answered if they would bother to read the links, and that will get modded up instantly by other morons . . . but the text of HB418 is actually quite specific. For example:

I. For all software acquisitions, each state agency, in consultation with the department of information technology, shall:

...

(d) Avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage; and

(e) Avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification of a state agency’s computer.

There's a lot of other stuff too, including stuff about open data formats.

Re:Goverment doesn't know what to do with open sou

[spauldo]

How about we just get rid of government and let everyone decide what to do with their own goddamn money.

Because most of us like having things like sewage systems, streets, and someone to get the drunk drivers off the roads. Of course, with no roads, I guess the drunk drivers wouldn't be a problem.

And if you think people would band together to pay for basic infrastructure without any government-style coordination, you're out of your mind.

Open source is great. I use it for all kinds of things, but I don't have much faith that government can make it work to anyone's benefit.

Why not? They make proprietary software work for people's benefit. What's so different about open source software?

Let people keep their earnings and decide what solutions are best for themselves.

Most people would be more concerned about basic security than software solutions if you were to remove the government.

Otherwise, you might as well just have them at least support real business that actually employs someone.

Government is real business. Seriously. They provide services for their customers in exchange for money. Sure, the people who receive services and the people who pay aren't necessarily the same people (i.e. I pay road tax, but my street hasn't been repaved since it was built in the 1930s, since apparently no one knows how to rebrick a #*$%ing street anymore), but the concept is the same. You even get to vote for the officers, which is more than an shareholder does.

The government employs people, just like a business. It pays those people in real, actual money - which is more than many business do, what with stock options and whatnot. Government can't run without government employees. Those employees are regular people, just like you and me. I've met quite a few very competent sysadmins who were GS rated government employees.

Get rid of the government, and you'll find yourself needing to solve a lot of problems. Every solution to those problems will evolve into government. It's the way of the world. Don't like it? Build a shack in the middle of Idaho and live off the land.

Re:Meaningless

[Will.Woodhull]

"Didn't meet our requirements."

With that statement, any choice can be made. It is impossible to legislate what people "should" do, particularly when dealing with large bureaucracies.

While true, this requires the minions to say so in writing, with their names attached. Which provides the demi-minions above them with grounds for low performance ratings, and so on up to the top of the heap. Where a challenger for some elected position could accuse the incumbent of failing to control costs, etc, using all these brief reports as concrete ammunition.

I have been employed by an agency of the Federal government, never for any State governments, but I believe when it comes to the hired staff they all work the same way. If you make the civil servants have to state their reasons for decisions in any kind of written report, suddenly those decisions become a lot more rational. They don't know who their boss will be after the next election, and if they want to advance, they've got to be good at covering their asses.

Looks to me like NH has found a way to make the CYA attitudes of its Sybil serpents work for the benefit of the populace. Way to go, Granite State!

Re:Meaningless

[Seth Cohn]

Thanks, as author of the bill, that was indeed PART of the intent of this...

I'm the legislator and prime sponsor, and author..

[Seth Cohn]

I'll answer any questions people have about the bill... post comments below.

This will be the FIRST Open Source and Open Data bill in any of the 50 states.

I'm very happy... And yes, I'm a geek. I've got a slashdot UID of 5 digits, have contributed to the Linux kernel and other project, tech edited a book on Drupal, and been doing techy things for over 25 years now...

Re:Ugh. PC Comes to the PC

[Seth Cohn]

Considering that I'm a libertarian (and member of the Free State Project, so not just a iffy libertarian, but one who packed up and moved his life to New Hampshire, and eventually ran for office, won, and got this legislation passed...), this is FAR from Nanny-State.

Government needs to be accountable on how taxpayer money is spent. Individuals can buy whatever they like, but I want the system to buy only the best choice for the least money, and if open source is considered, it'll often win. Not always, but more than it does now. (NH does use some open source now... FYI, including Apache webservers, for example, for some things)

Re:To what degree?

[Seth Cohn]

Yes, which is why the Open Data part of this bill is even more exciting than the Open Source part of it.

I. The commissioner shall develop a statewide information policy based on the following principles of open government data. According to these principles, open data is data that is:

(a) Complete. All public data is made available, unless subject to valid privacy, security, or privilege limitations.

(b) Primary. Data is collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, rather than in aggregate or modified forms.

(c) Timely. Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data.

(d) Accessible. Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes.

(e) Machine processable. Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing.

(f) Nondiscriminatory. Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration.

(g) Nonproprietary. Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control, with the exception of national or international published standards.

(h) License-free. Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security, and privilege restrictions may be allowed.

Compare that to http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles