I kinda like the idea of preventing "bad actors" from accessing FOSS software, however I have some objections: - these kind of terms are probably hard to suppo

I kinda like the idea of preventing "bad actors" from accessing FOSS software, however I have some objections: - these kind of terms are probably hard to support in court. a good actor today might become a bad actor tomorrow (Amazon wasn't always regarded as a bad actor -- think of Google and it's "don't be evil" policy) - The definition of bad actor might change from person to person. Amazon is cited for collaborating with ICE, but a ton of other companies are doing shady business too. To go to an extreme and consider pervasive data collection as surveillance and thus as an attack to the fundamental right of privacy would mean considering bad actors the vast majority of modern companies. Which is not bad, but cuts them off FOSS software. This is bad (for the software). - the inclusion of specific companies (and to some extent, some values instead of some other) seems arbitrary. Also, last but not the least: I've been exploring ideas around ways in which licensing could be used for dealing with unethical behavior in FOSS [cut] Amazon - for collaboration with ICE BP - assisting in climate destruction Collaborating with ICE and climate destruction are unethical in general, not just for software. I agree on the unethicalness of Amazon/BP (and many other) but I don't like software licenses as a way to push some kind of political agenda (no matter what side the agenda comes from). Push it too much and we'll see licenses in which the Persona Non Grata is someone endorsing LGBT rights or free healthcare. After all, everyone can come up with a license, right?