Stallman wrote about this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-fr

Stallman wrote about this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... I'm not saying this person cares about the free software movement, or has any requirement to help it thrive, but if you do, and you license software like this, you're an idiot. It doesn't stop "bad people" (whomever you think that is) using the software, they just disregard the license. It does stop "good people" - people who want to comply with your license - from using your software. Because you're not a lawyer, and your license is so sloppily drafted, so loosely written, that your prohibitions could apply to almost anyone; it would take a lot of effort on their part to be sure. Your software can't be included in distros, because they can't enforce your bespoke conditions. Basically, all decent people should avoid your software for their own good. Honestly, just look at how awful his license is: https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html#license-restrictions https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html#license-res... - now note that it has not defined what "government" means or "any of its organisations" means or "directly related" means or "download" or "use" means. So let's say I'm a contractor for a third party road crew and I fill in potholes identified by the parish council, am I working for an organisation "directly related" to a "government" on the shitlist? And if I am, I could copy the software easily if given to me on a CD or USB stick (because the surrounding Apache license allows it), but I'm prohibited from "downloading" it. I'm not prohibited from "uploading" it, or having someone "upload" it to me. This guy is just a crank, he's not a lawyer, and he really didn't think this through.