Why some US software companies ban their free products for some countries? I'm a developer from Iran and I know Iran is under US sanctions. I have a few questions. First let me start with an example. If you reach Docker Hub website from Iran you get this message: Since Docker is a US company, we must comply with US export control regulations. In an effort to comply with these, we now block all IP addresses that are located in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Republic of Crimea, Sudan, and Syria... If the product is a free software, does it count as exported goods? Why some US companies ban their free software products and some don't? Aren't they under the same law? Why sometimes a company bans some of their software products but not some others (all of them free)? For example Google does not allow Iranian users to download the Android SDK (or even read the Android docs) but they allow to download Google Chrome. Why would US ban Iranian people from using free software products? Isn't the problem nuclear program and human rights? What does downloading a free software has to do with those?
As a preface, every company must have a team of lawyers who interpret the rules and who know the practice of the Treasury Department, so that the company doesn't violate the rules and end up in big trouble. A company has to decide whether some action is worth the risk (meaning, knowing what is it worth to them, and what are the risks). There is a long FAQ from Treasury which tries to interpret the rules. A simple answer to the question is that a company might decide that the risk is too great, even if many or most specialists in the legal issues don't agree that there is an assumed risk. 31 CFR 560.204 states: Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that: (a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran; or (b) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology, or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped, or reexported exclusively or predominantly to Iran or the Government of Iran. Reducing the verbiage, exportation of technology to Iran is prohibited. It is thus not a stretch to think that exporting technology to Iran is prohibited for a US person or company. It is possible to obtain a license to export to or from Iran, see 31 CFR 560.501 ff.. It is completely not clear what it takes to get a license: I suggests that differences between US companies may relate to whether a particular company has a license to export. There are also prohibitions targeted at specific individuals and organizations. Transactions over the internet can be risky, because a website cannot compel a user to truthfully identify themselves, and "E.O. 13599 requires U.S. persons to block all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, unless otherwise exempt or authorized by OFAC", and absolute blocking is an extreme form of due diligence. The political questions as to the wisdom of the sanctions are appropriate for Politics SE.
I think haveibeenpwned would be legal in the EU because it carries out a task in the public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)), and it shares no more data then necessary, for example you can search for a password, but it would not show you the emailaddress which belongs to that password. It would also be legal for you to hold a copy of a leaked database, but only if you have a legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)) to have it. Being a security company does not change that, but finding a legitimate interest might be easier. If you have a legitimate interest to hold a copy of a leaked database, it does not mean you can use it in any way you like. For example testing if the password still works, is very likely illegal everywhere in the EU. But I'm not familiar with the UK laws.
No. These companies seem to be saying that they are entitled to sell music under some sort of mandatory licensing agreement authorized by the law of the Ukraine, or by a licensing agreement specific to the Ukraine. Even if this were true, it would only give them the right to distribute the files in the Ukraine. If an American, sitting in the U.S., makes a digital copy of a file on a Ukrainian server by copying it to his or her U.S. hard drive, they have to have a license to do so issued either by the U.S. copyright holder or authorized by U.S. law. A license to distribute in the Ukraine doesn't give the U.S. end user that license. A Ukrainian statute doesn't give the U.S. end user that license. If the end user doesn't have that license, he or she is violating the copyright holder's rights and may be civilly or criminally liable. There is no scienter requirement for copyright infringement. In fact, it's not at all clear that any Ukrainian site is operating even under this dubious legal cover. This report on Ukrainian licensing agencies by an industry group claims that many Ukrainian licensing authorities are actually scams that have no rights to distribute music under any license--one of the "rogue licensing agencies" discussed is Avtor, referenced in your first example. There is some legal confusion over what group does have permission to license music and collect royalties in the Ukraine, but it's clear that Avtor doesn't, and it certainly doesn't have permission to distribute them in the U.S. If a guy came up to you on the street and told you he had written permission from Disney to videotape their latest movies with a camcorder and sell them to you for a dollar, are you violating the law if you buy it? The answer is yes, and it's the same for these Ukrainian sites.
I've answered this in the context of US patent law, but similar principles apply elsewhere in the world. As stated in 35 USC 271, "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent". Thus, a patent provides the patent owner with the right to exclude others from performing these actions, and the right to sue anyone who does perform these actions (both to stop them from infringing the patent, and to collect monetary damages for their infringement). Creating an infringing product and then licensing it under the GPL (or any other scheme) does not change the fact that it infringes a patent. 35 USC 271 also states that "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer". This means that, even if the creator of the infringing product does not perform any infringing acts in the US, the act of offering it for free use could be construed as induced infringement of the patent, and they could still be sued for that infringement.
The creator of the software doesn't provide any warranty. If you feel confident in the quality of the software, nothing stops you from providing a warranty. If the software doesn't meet your guarantees, you will have to pay out because you provided the warranty, depending on the terms. Not the creator of the software because they explicitly didn't provide any warranty. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. I wouldn't. You don't have to republish under the BSD license, which you wouldn't. You must attach the license terms, which clarifies the role of the original creators, and that they don't give a warranty. Doing this allows you to copy the software. It doesn't mean you can't provide a warranty.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about having "jurisdiction" over an IP address, for the purposes you're discussing. If you wanted to sue the IP address itself--something that is possible under limited circumstances--then you might need to locate it for jurisdictional purposes. But I don't think that's what you're talking about. You're talking about taking civil or criminal action against the people who are using the IP address to commit crimes. What matters, in that case, is not a theoretical legal question about the location of an IP address. It's questions like: where do these people live? Where do the people downloading the illegal content live? Where are the physical servers located? ("In the cloud" is not an answer--there are physical servers somewhere making up that cloud). For jurisdictional purposes, the chair they're sitting in when they upload the illegal data, and the location of the AC power outlet the physical server is plugged into, are as important as, if not more important than, the metaphysical "location" of the IP address of the server.
If you can accurately describe in one license what constitutes the conditions where you wish to let users freely copy the software, and forbid any other uses, then you can also offer a second license that allows specified commercial uses with a second license. Basically, it reduces to being clear (to yourself and to the world) on what you mean by &quot;service&quot;, and what you want to allow vs. prohibit. That SSPL has a section on &quot;Offering the program as a service&quot;, though it does not prohibit it, it just requires the user to make the source code available for free. You could rewrite that section, and then hire a lawyer to give an opinion as to whether your re-write does what you think it does. Pay attention to the fact that you are interested in restrictions on &quot;cloud servers&quot; but the SSPL permissions are broader.
In the US, a patent holder has no obligation at all to use their patent. They can charge as much for their patented product as they want, and if there are no alternatives then they're in a pretty good market position. If Intel wants to make more microchips and ASML won't sell them the tools they need, Intel just has to offer more money. It's a monopoly, but that's the whole reason patents exist: giving inventors a monopoly on their inventions in exchange for publishing how they work. There is such a thing as using a patent anticompetitively, but it takes a lot more than charging a high price. Your Pfizer example runs up against one of the limits of patents, though. Patents are a government-supported monopoly, and they're only useful as long as the government keeps supporting them. A government has the sovereign power to say &quot;we're not going to enforce this patent.&quot; If the company has facilities in that country, the government even has the power to say &quot;you must manufacture more of this product.&quot; This is rare. Most countries are subject to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), which says they will provide a patent system that's also available to foreigners. But TRIPS allows countries to authorize the unlicensed use of patents to supply their domestic market under appropriate circumstances. The patent owner still has to be paid a fair amount, but the patent isn't ironclad. Countries can also issue compulsory patent licenses to produce drugs for export to other countries, again under appropriate circumstances. You could also have an ad hoc agreement between WTO members to make new TRIPS rules for something. This last option was actually discussed to waive COVID-19 vaccine protection worldwide, although it didn't end up happening. If Pfizer was charging $1,000,000 per dose, it probably would have happened. As was said in the comments, the Pfizer example was extreme. If Intel can't expand chip production because of ASML's patent, that's basically a commercial problem and should be solved by paying ASML more money. If people can't get COVID vaccines because Pfizer charges too much, that's a humanitarian problem and can be solved through government intervention.