Wow, that's some license addendum:
> This software should not be used to promote or profit from:
> violence, hate, and division,
> environmental destruction,
> abuse of human rights, or
> the destruction of people's physical and mental health.
> This software should not be used to promote or profit from:
> violence, hate, and division,
> environmental destruction,
> abuse of human rights, or
> the destruction of people's physical and mental health.
> The code is released under the BSD-3 License (see LICENSE.txt for details), but we also ask that users respect the following:
The license is in LICENSE.txt and that statement seems to unambiguously confirm that LICENSE.txt is the beginning and end of actual legal obligations.
It is not uncommon for FOSS projects to make requests without legal contract about how users use software. In this case it may simply be SalesForce trying to preliminarily distance themselves from malicious actors, with knowledge that the license would be useless if it attempted to give these rules teeth.
There's an old saying (that may well be impolitic these days): "you can't be half pregnant". It seems that's what they maintainers are shooting for... I'd urge them to get off the fence one way or the other.
Similar in principle to AGPLv3 or even WTFPL.
The issue is there's a license section in the README. There they reiterate that they use BSD 3 clause... and then have something that looks like "but...."
Again, as I read it: they're BSD 3 clause licensed and the README is an expression of their own (ill-expressed) hopes rather than a licensing requirement.... but I could see how some could be confused and indeed... maybe they are, too: and that's what would worry me about this statement.
I’d say most social media platforms check most or all of those boxes in some form, but I can also see them claiming not to know how their platforms are being used.