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".
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.