This idea has been strongly rejected by the FSF/GNU group. Now, they don't have magical sovereignty over the word "open source", but as commonly used, especiall

This idea has been strongly rejected by the FSF/GNU group. Now, they don't have magical sovereignty over the word "open source", but as commonly used, especially in "these parts of the woods", most people will think of Open Source == FOSS, which with no uncertainty intentionally allows bad people to use it. This is one of the things that has gotten RMS in hot water, and when push comes to shove is a pretty unpopular opinion, but is deeply embedded in the GNU GPL and BSD sense of "open source". There are multiple "don't be evil" licenses, with varying types of stipulations. Some literally say "don't be evil". There was one license that made the rounds here on HN a while back that said something to the effect of "you must accept the authority of the Christian Bible". These are controversial at best, and disliked in part because they're often extremely vague, and very questionably enforceable. Trying to spell out the specific moral or legal stipulations that would prevent one from using software is ... more doable from a legal perspective, but still opposed by FSF/GNU types, because it feels contrarian to the free software movement, and a general distrust for governments and government regulations. Taking people's software freedom away because of where they're born rubs some people the wrong way. Not sure exactly how I feel about the issue as a whole, I don't buy wholesale into Stallman's ideology, but it's something worth considering.