Just take the example "pornography": in most Western countries pornography is accepted and not considered as "evil", but in many Islamic countries, pornography is considered sinful.
Licensing it differently is one option, but either they wont care or they will just copy the intent and make their own version.
This is a problem without a good solution at this point except to have a frank and adult understanding of the consequences of your actions, and to be politically active so that you may contribute you part to preventing your government from the continuous war.
Crockford in this particular case seems like the most likely plaintiff, but I don't know if there would be other parties who would also have standing or not (also, i'm not a lawyer, so take this as you will).
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highe...
This is why legalese is so dense and complex, to remove as much flexibility and doubt as possible, so that you don't have a judge/jury deciding things. If you include the definition of the terms in the contract/licence then the judge/jury had to follow that.
Any desktop fits #2 if I open it up, open up the power supply, and lick the output of the mains rectifier in the switching power supply. Or consider a laptop/tablet having an uncontrolled thermal battery reaction (aka bursts into flames) on an airplane over the middle of an ocean.
Somewhat more directly, my dentist can't use a "sorta-open-source" calendaring app because people have died in dental offices from allergic reactions to injected dental antibiotics/anesthetics. Its kinda rare, but has been recorded to happen.
Simply naming or defining organizations is not as simple as it appears. Your freedom fighter group is someone else's terrorist is someone elses pacifist organization.
You need a cop-out for intention and rarity. By the time you add enough cop-outs that anyone can actually use it, you've almost certain cop-out enough that the .mil can also use it.