license VS awesome-copyfarleft

I'm working on a clause for my business that would restrict the use of my software by entities that directly or indirectly support or promote fossil fuel usage, and I would love to get some input from HN community on how to draft it effectively.

Here's the draft clause:

“The use of the software is strictly prohibited by any company or entity whose primary or significant activity contributes directly or indirectly to the exploration, production, expansion, or support of fossil fuel resources —explicitly including oil, natural gas, and coal— and related infrastructure.”

A second part could be added to explicit the prohibited activities:

“This includes, but is not limited to, companies engaged in oil and gas exploration, logistical support for fossil fuel extraction, management and operational services for existing fossil fuel production facilities, and initiatives aimed at increasing the output of fossil fuel resources. The prohibition extends to the marketing, promotion, or advertising of such activities, provision of services, technical support, or resources to directly involved entities in the fossil fuel sector, financial organizations funding or investing in related projects or infrastructures. Further, it encompasses entities that consume substantial quantities of fossil fuels and do not exhibit a verifiable commitment to significantly reduce such consumption within an established timeframe.”

The inspiration partly comes from the Climate Strike Software License[1], but I'm aiming for something more encompassing.

I've written more about this on my blog[2], but here, I'm specifically looking for your expertise on the legal and practical aspects of such a clause.

What are your thoughts? How could this be improved?

[1] https://climatestrike.software/

[2] https://jereze.com/blog/no-fossil-fuel-clause/

There are also some Copy-far-left or Copyfair Licenses that could be appealing to you as similar to CC-BY-NC-ND: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft

I don't agree that they are not open source, u only 'greed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft

> changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong.

I don't think consent is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.

There is some discussion on the P2P Foundation regarding copyfarleft/copyfair/copyjustright however in my experience even the most popular copyfarleft isn't as adopted.

I have been gathering resources regarding copyfarleft licensing and projects here: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft