The FSF would note correctly that the license is burdensome and would declare it non-free. This is a license that bakes in a lot of assumptions about who shoul

The FSF would note correctly that the license is burdensome and would declare it non-free. This is a license that bakes in a lot of assumptions about who should be running the code and how. If you can afford to comply with them, you are probably a corporation. There's a trend towards two(-or more) tier proprietary software licenses that formalize the difference between economic exploitation and consumer usage of software but that still want the cachet of being called "Open Source". The CAL falls very clearly under this category, for all its apparent good intentions.