[h2odragon]

tho I have nothing to do with those industries; i would not use your sftware if you had such restrictions. No telling when you'll take offense to the industry i am in.

I think you'd probably do better to license the software individually to users that meet your standards. Sell it for cheap or even free if you like. if someone is so unethical as to participate in these industries or activities you dislike; why would you trust them to honor your license restrictions?

[jereze]

I appreciate your perspective, and you bring up a valid point about the potential for the clause to alienate users.

Could be more manageable:

* Implementing a broad clause that reserves me the right to decline clients.

* Setting standard pricing for the general market.

* Offering discounted licenses to entities that I choose/like.

This tiered approach might be easier even though I was hopping for another route. It lacks of transparency compared to a public clause.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

[h2odragon]

I think this approach has advantages. Not least is it fits into what others have done, you won't have to spend time explaining how your licensing is different and so on.

Many companies offer discounted or free licenses to organizations as a form of support. Very vanilla, well understood.

The legal right to say "I cannot serve you as a customer because of moral / ethical conflicts" is being argued still in the USA but seems to still be fairly well understood.