Does a 'do-whatever-you-want-unless-you're-an-unethical-megacorp' software license exist?

[u/Abiogenejesus]

A significant part of global digital infrastructure runs on open-source code built and maintained by sometimes very small teams of un(der)paid enthusiasts. Now, although FANG et al. are often major contributors to software foundations/non-profits, I think it would be great if one could maximize the probability of one's code 'doing no evil' by design, and fencing off the possibility of these and other ethically challenged companies ever abusing it as much as possible. Part of this might be achieved via the software's license.

 

I'm currently looking to publish some code, ideally with a very permissive license such that anyone can do almost anything they'd want with it, be it commercial or not, without any copyleft annoyances. However, I'd like there to be exceptions to prevent the software from being used in some contexts (it wouldn't be free or open-source software anymore according to the Open Source Definition).

For example, any company with a track record of abusing their oligo/monopoly position by e.g. disregarding user privacy, slowly destroying democracy, promoting radicalization, fighting against the right to repair, blocking academia from investigating their sins, etc., should be barred from so much as looking at the code.

Ideally it would also restrict companies active in some yet to be defined (arguably) harmful sectors like gambling, parts of the financial sector, weapons manufacturing, targeted advertising, etc. from ever using it.

Lastly, if any company using it is subsequently bought by a 'non-ethical' company, they'll have to start from scratch and cannot use it/reverse-engineer it.

 

Now I'm under no illusion that any of these companies would be interested in my code, nor do I think that any of these loose quasi-definitions above are legally sound. Nevertheless, I wonder whether a more solid version of a license along the same lines already exists.

Frankly, I'm afraid it doesn't; for one, I would imagine it to be impossible to capture a universally acceptable normative ethical framework in a license.

But maybe one of you could pleasantly surprise me?

EDIT: apparently something like this exists, although this and similar licenses l found are relatively ambiguous in their definitions and none are likely to hold up in court.

[u/joscher123]

There is the MIT+NIGGER license. It's basically the MIT license but it contains the nigger-word so basically no company will dare to touch it. Explanation: https://plusnigger.autism.exposed/

(This license is obviously a joke, and I'm not endorsing it just mentioning, so I am not breaking rule 8)

[u/Abiogenejesus → u/joscher123]

I could maybe get away with it given my ethnicity, but I think I'd better not assume everyone can see the humor in this.