I mean, I think the point that the author of this license wants to point out is that, it brings a sense of discussion regarding something and tries to do something about it. Like, I feel like your statement shows HOPL in a negative light and there are ways to do that in the sense of how I think it might not make sense legally (But IANAL) but if this does, then honestly it would be really nice but I also feel like your statement can be modified enough to be an attack of GNU/GPL philosophy

I wonder if the first people who saw proprietory webservices using GPL code which the community wrote which makes it easy for them / faster to build (similar to AI) ,think, I will just license my code to forbid to be in the use of any proprietory webservices (Its called AGPL)

There are other licenses like ACAP (https://anticapitalist.software/) etc.

Some of these aren't foss OSI compliant but honestly why does it matter if I am creator or I am thinking of licenses y'know?

Like its my software, I wrote it, I own the rights, so I am free to do whatever I want with it and if someone wants to write a HOPL software, then yeah its in their rights but I just don't like when our community sometimes tries to pitch fork people for not conforming to what they feel like providing commentary onwards

I am not trying to compare GPL with HOPL but I am pretty sure that GPL must have been ridiculed by people in the start, Someone with knowledge please let me know and provide some sources on it as I am curious about it as to what the world reacted when GPL/FSF/ the notion which I think most of you know about was born and unleashed into the world, I am curious how the world reacted and maybe even some personal experiences if someone went through that era, I would appreciate that even more in which words wouldn't count as I think it was a really transformative moment for open source in general.