Right, this is perhaps the fundamental objection to social-good software licenses: how many people who don't engage in social good do respect copyright? The GP

Right, this is perhaps the fundamental objection to social-good software licenses: how many people who don't engage in social good do respect copyright? The GPL works because it's pretty unambiguous about what exactly your obligations are, it's pretty unambiguous when there's a violation of those obligations, and because there are entities that do care deeply about copyright (like, oh, Microsoft and Oracle and IBM) that you'd like to affect. Any license of the form "You must not use this code to wage war." is not going to get respected. The military doesn't care if you sue them. Any license of the form "You must obey laws" (like this one, "The above license is only granted to entities that act in concordance with local labor laws") is not going to get respected. Either the entity was going to obey laws, in which case it's redundant, or they weren't, in which case what do they care about copyright. Any license that's five lines long and tells a US court they have to decide whether a Chinese entity is complaint with Chinese labor law is just ... not going to work the way you want it to. Any license that restricts use and not distribution has the practical problem of being difficult to enforce. If your code runs inside Palantir's systems or on a Patriot missile or as part of the PRISM backend, how will you ever know? The AGPL skirts this line by retaining the "distribution" concept and just defining networked use as distribution (and I think even that is questionable) but anything where you're not actually seeing the infringement is not going to be feasible to enforce.