The company is based in the US. It's therefore subject to US law. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
Your answer reinforces what I'm saying: the US is unilaterally enforcing, through sanctions or legal pressure on a US company, restrictions on a shared "free" project. Hence, "free" isn't free.
> There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian?
More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk.
This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.
> This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric
That's fair. Interpreting or framing this as [the US valuing a specific kind of influence on Iran over them valuing the benefits of collaboration] makes sense.
> There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian?
More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk.
This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.