They're not banning the software. They're banning doing business with ByteDance.
If no money or contract is executed, you aren't covered.
It's ByteDance that chooses to enforce a ToS and have a contract - they could put the code and app up for download with no money changing hands, and it'd be fine.
This is importantly different. Not saying it's right or wrong, just specifically different.
Indeed. I don't see why people are mischaracterising this ban; it isn't banning software, it's an extension of the concept of a 'commercial embargo' - except now it applies to a company instead of a country.
