[iptq]

Yeah... looking at this it seems like there's still some gaping holes, for example specifying javascript in particular leaves WebAssembly open which is arguably worse than non-free javascript, and anything server-side is just ignored, like you said.

[kmeisthax]

My gut feeling is that any reasonable court would see "JavaScript" and interpret it to include WASM as well.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that all of the state's public touchpoints are free of proprietary software ownership. The subsection prior says that you shouldn't have to use proprietary software to interact with the government. Then they explicitly mention JavaScript to clarify that websites should also not load proprietary software onto people's computers, either. And WASM is specifically designed to integrate with JavaScript - in fact, it can't even be loaded without it.

The standard for interpretation of contracts and law is that, absent a specific definition of a term in the relevant document, you use the broadly-accepted definition of that term within that industry or endeavor. If you asked a bunch of web developers, "does 'no proprietary JavaScript' also mean 'no proprietary WASM'", they would almost certainly agree.