This is one of those situations where it feels like the issue creator is being annoying and pedantic, but ultimately they are probably correct. I actually have

This is one of those situations where it feels like the issue creator is being annoying and pedantic, but ultimately they are probably correct. I actually have a lot of sympathy for Izzy's initial "what's the big deal" reaction, but I think it is also explained quite clearly what the issue is. IMO the issue is mainly with "authorized" and "acceptable", which are very vague and could certainly be construed as an attempt to limit user freedom. They are so vague and nebulous that I suspect the author simply slapped them on without giving them much thought because they sound like legalistic, CYA-esque language. Beyond the hassle of changing the code and pushing the changes to the IzzyDroid repo, I can't imagine the author could have much of an objection to removing them - they're certainly not doing much to actually protect him. The discussion of the reference to "legal" use is more interesting to me. You could argue that even that is a restriction on freedom 0, but equally, you could argue that the language does not actually take away any legal right/freedom, as (by definition) you don't have the right to do illegal things in the first place. (It is not generally considered illegal to do things that are crimes in other countries, as laws are not generally considered to have extra-territorial effect.)