Tom Maitland

This sounds good, happy to accept a PR that does this.

We still have `violence (except when required to protect public safety)` as the wording in the current license. I'd be interested in some more discussion on this issue. Speaking practically,...

I think we've got suggested wording above. I just need to run this by more in the Raisely team before we decide to incorporate as it's a more substantial change....

Super trawlers `...derive a majority of income from actions that discourage or frustrate a sustainable environment`. I think they're already excluded.

I'm of two minds here. In most (all?) countries hacking is illegal and if you're already operating outside the law then you probably don't care about what the license of...

In the interest of simplicity I think if we include this we should be looking for broad wording, otherwise we start to get into debates at a level of detail...

> The reason is because a license like Do No Harm is useless and contradictory to its mission if it cannot defend the end user from attacks that could lead...

I'm not disagreeing with you that hacking is bad! My suggestion above would disallow this: > add to d: d. addictive or destructive products and services > - products that...

Since starting the NoHarm license the thing we've wanted to avoid is playing a game of whack-a-mole with all the things that _could harm_ out there – as that would...

The license already covers gambling but generally we’ve taken the approach that the license doesn’t need to cover things that are already generally illegal - as we don’t want or...