That is scary. But what gives a certain government (in this case the US) the right* to say code that has been contributed by global citizens should no longer be

That is scary. But what gives a certain government (in this case the US) the right* to say code that has been contributed by global citizens should no longer be accessible to certain people (possible including those who contributed in the first place?) Isn't something that is restricted against the following statement from "The Free Software Definition"[1]: > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. > We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. ... the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software - That sentence in particular seems to imply that if you restrict it, something can still be open source (OSS), but no longer free/libre (FLOSS). So if the DoD claims to have FLOSS code that cannot be used in certain cases, by definition it should be described as OSS, not FLOSS. [1](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)