I'm reminded that JS Lint used a derivative of the MIT License that included "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." This turned out to be a problem f

I'm reminded that JS Lint used a derivative of the MIT License that included "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." This turned out to be a problem for the project. Who gets to define good and evil? In the case of the Hippocratic License I can imagine it running into similar problems. > “actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups.” How is underprivileged measured? What happens when an underprivileged group is no longer in that class? Does the use of the software then change? This matters not just for how people feel about it but in a legal sense since a license is a legal document.