This is a followup to "Tools and resources."
A few relevant anti-acknowledgements:

First, when I say I'd like to thank the entire open-source community,
in this I'd like to exclude cryptocurrency peddlers, black-hat hackers,
people who think it's okay to use AI to steal real people's art, and fascists.
In a practical sense, I'm ashamed to admit I probably don't owe anyone
any less thanks just because they fall into any of these categories,
but any gratitude owed I withhold from them, and specifically them,
as a matter of spite.

Second, if you're an open-source enthusiast
and believe ethical-source software is not open-source software,
sorry, but I disagree. I don't care if you're from the OSI,
or how many stars you have on GitHub. Actually, I do care,
because if you're from the OSI, and/or contributed to any of the projects
I used to develop this game, then let me just say you're awesome
and I'm a big fan of your work. But what I mean is that I don't respect
your imaginary authority to decide for everyone else what does or doesn't count
as open-source just because you've done so much for the cause.
You can't own an idea. Heh, sound familiar?

Third, and longest:

If you care about free-as-in-libre software, and object to my use
of the phrase "open-source" because that's not the important part,
or you object to my use of an ethical-source license because it's nonfree,
sorry, but I disagree. Even if you're from GNU or FSF, then, again,
let me just say I think you're great, and I'm a huge fan of your work
and your community's vision, but I have two things to say to you.

One, you don't even think the license I'm using counts as "free" anyway,
and neither does some of the ethical-source community themselves,
so it's out of respect for both of us that I'm not calling it that.

Two, that being said, the advantage of standard copyleft over permissive
is that it lets you not only grant user freedoms, but protect them.
The advantage of anti-harm copyleft over standard copyleft, meanwhile,
is the exact same: it provides for the edge cases where standard copyleft
still fails to protect the freedoms it grants.

Patent trolling isn't the only way a powerful entity can abuse open software
to strip others of the freedom to use the software in kind.
Say you write free-as-in-libre image recognition software,
and it winds up used for precision missile strikes. What about the freedoms
of the bombing victims to use your software? They can't use it if they're dead,
and your software has been used to kill them. Therefore, your software
has been exploited to take away from others the freedom to use your software.
Isn't this just a differently-presented instance of the exact scenario
which the free software movement initially set out to prevent?
Aside from the abject inhumanity involved, how is it any different?

I'm sure you think cases like this are important. I'm certainly not trying
to say you don't. But maybe you think they fall outside the purview
of licensing, and should be addressed solely with activism. To which I say,
why? Why not both? As long as you've got a severability clause, it's not like
trying can hurt anything.

Maybe a hammer alone isn't the right tool for a screw, but if you have a hammer
and a screwdriver, why not use the screwdriver, and then make extra-sure
with the hammer? It's stupid, and you might break whatever you're trying
to get the screw into, but, well, good! Evil is an unwanted machine that ought
to be broken. Let's mess the screw up, you and me, and get it bent and stripped
in there. I hope it warps the chassis. I hope it punctures the CPU.
Aren't you angry about the prison that big tech and its proprietary software
have built? Are you still as angry about it as you were in the eighties,
old man? Then stop holding back. Let's tear it apart. Let's attack it
with EVERYTHING we have. Even dumb things, like deliberately jamming screws.
As a funny web animation I liked when I was younger once said,
throw the cheese!