Surely you have ever heard the term licensing ethical code or ethical-source. Some Hippocratic licenses that have not had a strong adoption, although that does not mean that they are not used. However, the truth is that these ethical-source licenses have not had an easy path ...
You should also know YES (Organization for Ethical Source), a non-profit group. It was founded by the leader of the ethical code and creator of the Hippocratic License, and Contributor Covenant, Coraline Ada Ehmke. She starts from the idea that the concept of free and open source software "Freedom Zero" (the freedom to run software as desired and for any purpose) is outdated.
So much Coraline ada As the proponents of these ethical-source licenses, they do not want free or open source software to be used for any purpose, but rather want to limit use to avoid evil ends.
As they well report from these movements, the world has changed since the birth of these open licenses, and has become somewhat more hostile, and now open source is used for mass surveillance, military, government, and other human rights abusing uses around the world. For this reason, in the face of this new course and the new technological, social and political challenges that we face, the defenders of ethical-source licenses intend to take power away for these undesirable ends.
With, for example, the Hippocratic License 2.1, is part of a license similar to MIT, but several clauses have been added. These clauses determine who or what the project under this license can be used for. In fact, human rights are defined as those described in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Global Compact.
Therefore, the software could not be used by any person or entity for any type of activity that violates any Human Rights Law.
Regardless of the opinion of these types of licenses, the truth is that they will not be well received, at least in the most relevant open source projects. The reason is that there are many projects that are currently used for purposes for which many would not agree, with very powerful entities behind. So, I don't think they let these kinds of licenses stop them from doing what they do. What's more, even if they were implanted, I doubt they would be respected ...
I do not think that Richard Stallman, the founder of free software, would agree to protect your freedom, your privacy and your freedom to program and modify the code, but that on the contrary, he did not respect human rights, which is the most sacred thing in our world and that he should be in the statutes of all the parties in this world of crazy people and people who use anything to laugh at the opposite.
First things first, "respect and you will be respected"
Get the idea masters of binary code that in the not too distant future with quantum computing the "bargain" of the "bad guys" who use the code even to provoke wars that are not seen has the hours counted, a machine could be on and off at the same time and it will handle parameters that have nothing to do with this "soup" of massive piracy that is happening now.
Quantum computing will not be written with ones and zeros, moreover, there will be tetraexcimal parameters that will be completely impossible to hack, unless you are the one who designs those computers completely, which I doubt very much.
Times always change, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better, computing will also change…. do not have the slightest doubt.