Also, wouldn’t this ban also potentially kill or at the very least cripple FOSS too? And what about browser forks like LibreWolf or Icecat?
Because I could see this law overriding rights that basically all FOSS licenses grant to modify something as long as that modification, and the source code in general, is still freely available.
No, copyright holders have the right to provide permission for modification and distribution of their copyrighted material. That includes providing conditions for that permission, such as requiring the derivative to hold the same license (like GPL). This is a case where the copyright holder is not explicitly providing those rights, so it is a completely different scenario.
Correct, this case (as far as I’m aware) is only about modification. I simply mentioned distribution and derivative works to talk about libre licenses like GPL being different than what the court case is about
Also, wouldn’t this ban also potentially kill or at the very least cripple FOSS too? And what about browser forks like LibreWolf or Icecat?
Because I could see this law overriding rights that basically all FOSS licenses grant to modify something as long as that modification, and the source code in general, is still freely available.
No, copyright holders have the right to provide permission for modification and distribution of their copyrighted material. That includes providing conditions for that permission, such as requiring the derivative to hold the same license (like GPL). This is a case where the copyright holder is not explicitly providing those rights, so it is a completely different scenario.
But ad blockers don’t distribute derivative materials.
It’s like saying you can’t distribute a stencil to cover up things you don’t like to see in a book.
Correct, this case (as far as I’m aware) is only about modification. I simply mentioned distribution and derivative works to talk about libre licenses like GPL being different than what the court case is about