I think adding the term to the license doesn't solve this problem (and were silly), but I think your argument is the wrong way to look at it. People should take

I think adding the term to the license doesn't solve this problem (and were silly), but I think your argument is the wrong way to look at it. People should take a moral responsibility for the code they write, and refuse to write code if they view its uses as immoral, but you have to weigh for yourself what that means and what those criteria are, and adding a license requirement doesn't solve this problem. It's not hard to justify developing a compiler or CPU (or a JS lintier) and deciding that it's just a generic tool and you have no control over the code compiled with it - and that's perfectly fine. You might however find it harder to justify writing functionality that's designed to track people or that you know is intended to be used for nefarious purposes, and in those situations you should be willing to hold yourself to whatever moral standard you have determined. Just because everyone below you hasn't prevented you from doing it isn't a reason to go along with it, you know more directly what your software is going to be used for than they do and they're effectively trusting you to make these decisions. Again though, a JS linter doesn't exactly have these concerns ;)