Administrative Service, Department of; prohibit a governmental entity from entering into contracts for the licensing of certain software applications
HB913 would amend Georgia’s state purchasing laws to restrict how governmental entities license software applications. The bill provides that when a governmental entity contracts for software designed to run on generally available desktop or server hardware, the contract may not limit the entity’s ability to install or run that software on desktop or server hardware of its own choosing. In effect, it seeks to prevent software licensing terms that tie a public buyer to a vendor’s preferred hardware platform or otherwise constrain the government’s hardware selection.
The bill defines “governmental entity” broadly to include state departments, agencies, boards, commissions, authorities, counties, municipalities, school systems, and other political subdivisions. It applies to new software licensing contracts entered into on or after the effective date, as well as renewals, modifications, and extensions of those agreements. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval or becoming law without approval, and it repeals conflicting laws.
HB913 would add a new section to Title 50, Chapter 5, Article 3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, specifically governing Department of Administrative Services purchasing authority and public procurement practices. Its practical effect is to limit the terms that can be included in software licensing contracts by public entities, especially terms that restrict deployment to vendor-specified hardware. This could increase flexibility for state and local governments, school systems, and other political subdivisions when purchasing and deploying software, while also affecting how vendors structure licensing agreements for public-sector customers.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition in the provided materials, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or resistance. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears framed as a procurement flexibility and vendor-neutrality reform, which typically appeals to public purchasers seeking more control over technology decisions. Because no voting history or discussion is included, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral to potentially favorable, with no explicit evidence of controversy in the supplied context.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s restriction on software licensing terms that limit hardware choice. Supporters would likely view this as protecting governmental entities from vendor lock-in and preserving procurement flexibility, while opponents or affected vendors might argue it interferes with standard licensing practices, pricing models, compatibility requirements, or support obligations. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of governmental entity, which extends the rule to counties, municipalities, school systems, and other political subdivisions, potentially creating broad compliance obligations across public-sector procurement.