FOSS originalists insist on no limitations on use of the software.
The FSF prohibits such in what they call freedom 0:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
And OSI explicitly forbids it in their open source definition:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from
> being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
This rules out no-CSP licenses from those definition, as well as the original JSON license, as it used to read something like "this software shouldn't be used for evil". Those rules would also block banning software from being used for war crimes, human rights abuse, etc. And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities (and not just possibly reducing shareholder value). But I digress.
Sure, I know, but I mean that's just their subjective line in the sand. (Their maximal-freedom in this kind of infinite dimensional space.)
After all wouldn't a user be more free if they were able to just do whatever they want with it, not just run it? Ie. free to copy/modify/sublicense it in any way? Why is program execution more important than other use of the intellectual property?
If they want to maximize freedom for all potential users, then they ought to think about sustainability of the software. (As in economic incentives and market share and whatnot.) To me it seems they have a static worldview, the only thing they care about is that current set-in-stone version of the work, but that's basically putting their head into the cool refreshing sand of ignorance.
(That said, I'm nowhere near FSF/OSI circles (duh! :P), so I have no idea what's their current thinking of this. Maybe they are fully aware of this, but ... based on HN chatter it seems that they realized it's a hard problem and picked an oversimplified worldview as workaround, and now it's institutionalized denial.)
> And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities.
I'm very skeptical of the practicality of it (after all if there's one thing states in general are good at, it is waging large scale wars and appropriating everything required for it), but if adding naive sounding clauses to FOSS-ish projects can prevent at least a few drone attacks it will have worth it.
Also, if people want to somehow put these use-restrictions into "the right context at the right time" then they can add a clause for that.
Ie. add a clause listing categories of uses and/or users (military, law enforcement, surveillance, and any state, state-owned, significantly state-sponsored entity) that require express written authorization from a named organization/institution, and folks could simply pick this when they start a project. (From Apache2-NATO to AGPL-ChaosComputerClub and so on.)
