I am not talking about companies. I edited my comment. Emphasis on "[their] PERSONAL" computer.

I know that companies would probably not. But individuals?

It's probably the inverse:

they might license it to companies in the US, but don't want to have to deal with the changes and bureucracy needed to support individuals.

The statement's purpose is to say the equivalent "if you're a European and do run it, it's on you, this is not a product we release or support for the European market, don't expert support, liability, etc".

I get that. What I do not get it some other commenters "scaring" Europeans attempting (or thinking) to run this product.

I mean, this other commenter literally said:

> You'll be both breaking their licence and potentially your local European data laws.

I'm really torn on the whole thing. I consider myself a patriotic American and would never do anything to undermine the security of my country or its allies (using the same definition of national security that the serious sworn oaths use, "all enemies foreign and domestic", which makes NSA backdoors that compromise American devices squarely a "domestic enemy").

But loyalties don't change facts and China is where serious hackers are rising on merit, doing a lot with limited resourves, giving zero fucks about empty slick talk.

If we wanted to hobble the PRC's technical rise we should have subsidized wasteful NVIDIA use and had Altman/YC be in charge: they'd still be gladhanding about how to pump their portfolio companies sticker price and avoid "systemic shocks" to the stock market anchored on NVDA.

Just for the record, I would never run this product, but it has nothing to do with the LICENSE itself.

Well, people say such things even for watching pirated shows, which to be truthful, almost everybody does...

Some just are narc types.

Why would they open themselves up to liability in the rest of the world where it is allowed?

> The point is, who gives a damn about (doing an illegal thing) in reality, on their (private property where nobody is likely to see that)?

I'm not sure which part of that you find confusing. Some people will estimate benefit>risk and won't care.

What? I do not find anything confusing. You live in a Marvel world if you think a LICENSE is going to stop people from using a product. But like you said, it is not intended to be for enforcement purposes, but Huawei is trying to save its own ass.

So what is your answer? Mostly companies only? That is a fair answer, but you are the one who said this:

> You'll be both breaking their licence and potentially your local European data laws.

Again, who cares, dude? Companies might, but individuals probably give a rat's ass. So why leave that comment?

And just for the record, if you quote someone, quote them verbatim, otherwise it is not a quote.

Breath.

Been there, done that.

That said, I agree that it is my fault that self-contradicting virtue signaling hypocrites always find a way to irk me.

And I think it is good for the world to know that the LICENSE often means jack shit, unless when companies of significant size are involved.

Again, we all agree that they put it there to cover their own asses, not that Europeans cannot download, install, and run their product, right?

Yes we’re all aware of the unlimited rights of Europeans, including subjecting the rest of the world to annoying cookie notifications.

Europeans definitely do not have unlimited rights, and I do not agree with the annoying cookie crap either.