I'm a little bit sympathetic to the general idea of more restrictive licenses (not on this criteria), but one of the realities is that it's going to exclude mor

I'm a little bit sympathetic to the general idea of more restrictive licenses (not on this criteria), but one of the realities is that it's going to exclude more than just the people expressly excluded. Reasons other people might also want to avoid the software include: * Its lifecycle might be encumbered by this license (e.g., not included by some distros, and the general open source user base puts its contributions behind something more inclusive or accessible). * For some purposes, a nonstandard license needs special vetting by lawyers for approval, and this one has what I'd guess are some legal and PR bombs in it. * The author may be a reasonable and principled person, with their heart in the right place, who's exercised their rights in how they license their creations... But are they reacting from some crisis mode of concern about all the wrongs in the world, and could this mode deteriorate into unwelcome surprises from the much more limited perspective of third-party software users? (Will the project become abandoned? Will someone push out undesirable or even trojan software changes? Will the banned parties list be expanded in some way untenable for you?)