Obviously most of this licence is awful, to the point where I could be convinced it's a troll. On the other hand, I don't fully disagree with some ideas of a moral license. I've even considered adding a line forbing any thing I make from being used for irl weapons/war as I don't think I could handle the weight of knowing code or hardware Ive designed was used to intentionally hurt someone. From the perspective, I can see how somebody that is a very devout Christian could want to use this licence. I think the idea of morality licenses deserve more thought than an outright dismissal. Of course, as other comments have pointed out, drawing that line will always be hard. If I already wanted to exclude being used for weapons/war, why not tack sexism, racism, use by opressive governments, being used to hinder free speech, etc. on there too? I suppose the easiest answer is to say that there's a threshold of ambiguity, that is while there might be edge cases in weapons/war, sexism and racism would be a lot harder to define- is porn sexism? Is talking about statistics about health data between races racism?

I suspect HN is pretty heavily left-learning atheist, which is leading us to immediately dismiss an otherwise not-crazy idea because of a particularly crazy example.

I suppose I'd like to know if there are some morality clauses that could be considered reasonable? Especially that of weapons/war.