Prohibits state agencies from entering into software contracts that limit the agency's ability to install or run the software on their hardware.
Summary
H5435 amends Rhode Island’s state purchasing laws to restrict how state agencies may license software. The bill provides that when a state agency enters into a contract for software applications intended to be installed on generally available desktop or server hardware, the contract may not limit the agency’s ability to install or run that software on hardware of the agency’s choosing.
The measure defines the relevant universe of covered transactions broadly as state software application purchases, including contracts, grants, orders, leases, purchase orders, and related supplemental agreements paid in whole or in part with state funds. In practical terms, the bill is aimed at preventing software licensing terms that tie state agencies to a vendor’s preferred hardware or otherwise restrict deployment on state-selected equipment.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Chapter 37-2 of the General Laws governing state purchases and would constrain procurement terms for software licenses entered into by state agencies. It would not ban software contracting, but it would invalidate contract provisions that prevent agencies from installing or running covered software on hardware they choose, thereby affecting procurement practices, vendor licensing terms, and agency technology planning across state government.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable toward increasing state flexibility and control over software deployment. The bill’s stated purpose suggests a pro-agency, pro-competition approach to procurement, with an emphasis on avoiding restrictive vendor terms. No contrary positions are documented in the available record.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee transcripts or voting history. Potential areas of debate, however, could include whether the bill interferes with software vendors’ licensing models, whether it could raise costs by limiting negotiated hardware/software bundles, and how broadly the phrase "generally available desktop or server hardware" should be interpreted. Any opposition would likely come from vendors or procurement stakeholders concerned about implementation and contract flexibility, while support would likely come from agencies seeking greater autonomy and interoperability.