> Open source software is speech. As in free speech.
> However, sometimes legislators need to be protected from their own
> stupidity. It wouldn't be the first time that MPs later regret voting
> for certain legislation because of unintended consequences.

Even if it were approved as currently is redacted, with the mess that would be created, they would amend it quickly.

They are politicians, they will not do anything that harms them: nothing that makes them lose economic power, political power or that makes life difficult for them. Ethics about software (and other issues) don't matter to them (unfortunately), but banning free software that is so widely used would complicate their lives (politics -not the parliamentarians but their political party colleagues- are managers of public administration services and do not want to get into trouble).

Topics that I do find worryingly "easy" to legally ban, prohibited or restricted:
* Cryptography and network anonymity: Banning these gives them more power. It is excusable with narratives relating to security, illegal activities,...
* Embarrassing information leaks: Banning it gives them greater immunity. It is excusable with narrative relating to national security. See Wikileaks and the unfortunate treatment given to Julian Assange as an extrajudicial punishment that "serves as a lesson" to whoever tries to do the same.

Best regards.