Then they're incompatible with FOSS. If someone

- releases code under MIT/GPL/whatever, declaring that their work may be changed and redistributed

- then later asserts their moral right to NOT have their code changed and redistributed

then they have done a nasty bait-and-switch move. The have shown themselves dishonest, and using their software should be considered a legally dangerous idea. If their courts support their claims then FOSS, as we know it, is unviable in that realm.

But this hasn't ever happened, has it? Europe's FOSS development activity seems robust enough. But perhaps they are legally on a sand foundation...