Comment by ExoticPearTree
9 hours ago
And why would they have an objection to that? They sold a product to a customer. They should have no business in how that customer uses their software.
9 hours ago
And why would they have an objection to that? They sold a product to a customer. They should have no business in how that customer uses their software.
It’s a bit more complex than that, but to be fair I don’t know what they were expecting after they integrated a purpose-built model with Palantir to be deployed in high-security networks to carry out classified tasks.
TBH I don’t know what they were expecting when closing that $200 million DoD contract last year.
So firearms dealers should be fine with their customers going on mass murder sprees?
Is this a rethoric question?
Is your original question rhetoric? Because it ain't very... smart
Licensing is a thing. See requirements that, for example, GPL3 places on customers.
I'd hate to break it to you, but companies do have a right to determine how their products are used. You were subject to that when you wrote that comment. Did you not notice that?
No, I do not think they do. If a buy a car a run somebody over on purpose, the manufacturer has no right to come take my car away. Even if it were to be written in a contract.
You're confusing physical goods transactions with subscription access to a service.
One of the many reasons every company has tried to shift their business model to the latter: greater control over users.
It's different with services. If you close a mobile phone contract and use it for spamming, the supplier can cancel your contract.