> 21-W:7 Role of Law Enforcement. No member of law enforcement in the state of New Hampshire, or any of its political subdivisions, shall assist federal law enforcement in any investigation or prosecution of copyright claims or other claims of intellectual property crimes brought by makers of proprietary software against makers of competing free and open software projects.
Granted, most IP is civil but preempting even investigation seems, er, overly broad.
Oh yeah, this isn't going to pass. Not with something ridiculous like this in there. I don't understand why this is in there. It seems like someone is trying to slip this past the lawmakers. So if someone steals Google proprietary code and puts it in their open-source project, and hosts it in New Hampshire, the state won't assist the feds track down the owner? What does that accomplish? How does that help legitimate open-source?
The high-order bit is that if you install your apps to user-writable locations in the file system, your app is vulnerable to any other app the user runs. There's no reason Electron apps can't be installed to protected locations. VSCode provides a "system installer" that does, for example (on Windows). However, updates require elevation so to reduce friction, the per-user installer is the recommended default for VSCode.
A few years ago, they asked me to be a tech reviewer and the compensation was a credit/bio, a copy of the book, and an ebook of any other of their books. No money. I took that as a sign they weren't serious about getting a good review.
Blocking the sale or hosting of software is one thing; Commons Clause also blocks any "consulting/ support services related to the Software." That's way too broad; is a system that uses Redis "related to the Software"? It's also short-sighted: it limits the ecosystem's growth to the ability of one company to expand and take on "consulting/ support services."
Granted, most IP is civil but preempting even investigation seems, er, overly broad.