The purpose of a software license is to codify the rights the author grants to its users. The author can't claim to use a free software license, while also making separate demands about how the software can be used. These demands should either be part of the license, or removed altogether. This moral shaming for breaking a "social contract" is ridiculous. The software is either free or not. You can't have it both ways.
“Don’t use this for evil” is a legal and valid software license. This is anathema to programmers and law-as-code adherents, but it’s perfectly acceptable to bring to a court of law in a licensing dispute. Different courts and different acts of accused evil will result in different judgments. It would be very difficult for a corporation to accept that license; it would be very simple for an individual to do so.
Such a license does not comply with your requirements; yet, it is also valid under case law, even if it is statistically unlikely to permit enforcement against most claimed evils. Each society has certain evils that are widely accepted by the courts, so it certainly isn’t a get out of all possible jails free card.
The purpose of a license is to inform of the rights available. The user is responsible for evaluating the license, or for trusting the judgment of a third party if they are uninterested in evaluating themselves.
If the author’s entire license “This is free software for free uses, please contact me for a paid license for paid uses” then that is statistically likely to be court enforceable against exploitation, so long as the terms offered are reasonable to the judge and any expert witnesses called. The Free Software Foundation does not have exclusive rights to the words “free software”. Adoption will be much reduced for someone who writes such a license, of course, and perhaps someone will exploit a loophole that a lengthier outsourced license would have covered. Neither of those outcomes are necessarily worth the time and effort to try and prevent, especially when use of any open source license guarantees the right of exploitation for unshared profit in plain language versus the homegrown one which does not.
This is not a legal matter, nor is it related to the FSF and any of the "open source" licenses. My argument is philosophical.
Using a license that allows the software to be distributed and modified, while placing restrictions or exemptions to those permissions outside of the license, at the very least sends mixed signals. My point is that if the author wants to make those restrictions, that's fine, but the license is the correct place for it. What's shitty from my moral perspective is using a commonly accepted free software license for marketing purposes, but then judging people for not following some arbitrary demands. If anything, _that_ is the unethical behavior.
I completely agree with you. I just want to point out that the actual software author here is not being aggressive about it. They make a request and that's it. Nor are the other 55 contributors visible on github.
"we ask (but not demand, these are words on the internet, not word of law) that you not remove the Anubis character from your deployment"
For whatever reason somebody decided to blow it out of proportion here on hn.
Well, sure, but the author is also labeling people who don't comply with their request as "cowards" in this very thread. So by the same token that they kindly make a request, they can also refrain from passing judgment on people who kindly don't comply. And the same goes for people who pass their judgment on the author's behalf, or make a point about some "social contract".
