The mainstream media portrayed the settlement between the US State Department and Defense Distributed as the former "allowing" the latter to make such files available. Defense Distributed's opponents claim that it shouldn't be "allowed" to do so.
Ten headlines from a quick Google News search, starting with the thing mentioned above:
AG Bob Ferguson sues Trump administration over decision to allow public access to 3D-printed guns
Ohio judge sued over refusal to allow transgender teens to change names
Deri vetoes municipal efforts to allow businesses to operate on Shabbat
Dental Board votes to allow arrested dentist to keep practicing despite Governor's concerns
China urges U.S. not to allow stopover by Taiwan president
Rauner signs bill to allow medical marijuana in schools
SEC Commissioner: ‘No Reason’ Not to Allow Bitcoin ETF
New Zoning Rules to Allow Short-Term Rentals
Judge rules in favor of Sterling Heights to allow mosque to be built
Stamford reps: Reject zone change to allow freestanding fitness centers in office parks
Each of those headlines treats as settled the claim that a given government body has a legitimate power to "allow" ("[t]o grant license to; to permit; to consent to") or not "allow" someone to do something.
I don't consider it settled at all. I'll try not to mangle reader/commenter dL's statement on the libertarian attitude toward such things:
The libertarian position vis a vis the state and Peaceful Activity X is
DON'T NEED YOUR FUCKING PERMISSION