Consider removal of clause against "tobacco"

[KernelDeimos]

Overview

I believe prohibiting products or services that promote or make profit from tobacco products will limit adoption of the license, causing more harm than good overall.

There's precedent of a PR suggesting prohibiting alcohol-related use being closed for this very reason.

I also happen to be a pipe smoker, so I know there are some people for which the collection and use of tobacco-related products and tobacco can be considered a hobby. If somebody wanted to make a website showing off their collection of vintage tobacco pipes, for example, they could not use any software under this license.

Proposed Resolution

I don't think the clause against tobacco should be in this license.

[realpixelcode]

If somebody wanted to make a website showing off their collection of vintage tobacco pipes, for example, they could not use any software under this license.

I think it should be clarified here that the licence's terms only prohibit use of the licenced software by such a website, not generally by the person who operates it:

This software must not be used by any organisation, website, product, or service that …

In other words, you can't DNH-licenced software on your tobacco website, but if you also have a second website about something else, you can use DNH-licenced software there.

[BigBlueHat]

Tobacco is a sacred substance to many North American indigenous communities (at minimum). Consequently, there is a current conflict between the prohibition 5.i.d. (2nd point) and 5.i.a. (4th point) "The software must not be used [for] ... discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, sexuality, religion, nationality."

I appreciate what's being attempted here, but the level of nuance required across a very round globe with a wonderful diversity of cultures and people is going to make "getting it right" extremely subjective and hard to enforce legally.

So, 👍 for removing "tobacco" from 5.i.d. (2nd point).

And best of luck on navigating the pan-cultural issues defining "no harm" will continue to raise.