[javbit]

It's not a free software license as it restricts freedom zero, the ability to use it for any purpose.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms

It's interesting because I'm sure no free software author wants to inadvertently support a dubious cause. The Anti-Mil clause prevents that (in theory at least, as license enforcement is hard for everyone). However, it also nominally prevents use by good causes as well (you can grant exceptions, however). Good and bad here are relative to the author.

I guess it's a balancing act between upholding ones own sense of right and wrong, and the freedom for someone else to have a differing opinion than you.

Edit: Removed "strictly" from "strictly free software". It's unfree.

Edit: Added some words for clarification.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Thanks for your feedback. To be honest I wasn't thinking about free software, I wanted a license that would make the project available to everyone, unless they are affiliated with the military of some nation. There are no such licenses, so I improvised.

Perhaps there should be more such licenses. On the other hand, it might also create problems. For example, what if I decide that I don't want my code to be used by people who are against same-sex marriage, or abortion, or who are for those things, or who eat meat, or don't eat meat, etc?

In any case, the license is what it is. It's an unfree license. Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't realised.