A copyright license can give you rights regarding redistribution of works beyond those rights that “normal” copyright could already give you.
Those redistribution rights can come with provisions and restrictions, such as “source must be provided” or “the redistribution must be non-commercial”.
Some of those provisions and restrictions are “approved” by communities and organizations like Debian—some are even encouraged—others are frowned upon and described (by them; don’t shoot the messenger on this stuff) as “non-free”. Specifically which redistribution provisions should be rejected, approved, or encouraged is something people can have opinions on and argue about. If they want to. I don’t feel like it right now and I haven’t been for years.
Restrictions and provisions on things other than redistribution, such as use, technically isn’t something a copyright license can do. That’s not something I decide or have an opinion about. It’s just how it is (according to my [lay, TINLA] understanding of the law).
The only legal way to get someone to use your stuff the way you want them to, like if you have made a mug opener designed only for kitchens, and you want to prevent people from using that MODOK to open mugs out on the patio, is to get them to sign some sort of contract with you. (This is what EULAs try to do, with mediocre success.)
This (redistribution provisions vs usage restrictions) isn’t something I decided. It’s not that I want the law to be what it is. I don’t want there to be military and killing and nazis and big corp. I can understand the sentiment of you, a spoon-maker, to not only want to restrict your enemies from hitting people with one of your spoons; you sometimes, when it’s darkest, even wanna prevent them from even eating with that spoon, to not take step one on Maslow’s needs if it’s aided by you. I get that.
Copyright allows you to restrict redistribution, and copyright licenses allow you to (wholly or provisionally) lift those restrictions. That’s all it can do. Again, don’t shoot the messenger on that.
Yes, this sucks.
There are explicitly enumerated restrictions hardcoded in horrible laws like DMCA and EUCD like how they make it illegal to try to circumvent DRM. If only they had made it possible to make it so that I can give code away and have a provision that it can’t be used for harm. Or better yet, make new separate laws against destroying the climate through fossil fuels, making weapons, or oppressing outgroups. That’s what I’m really against. I oppose market capitalism and weapons and killing so all those “anti-capitalist software licenses” would appeal to me—I certainly see and agree with the problem they were designed to solve—it’s just that this isn’t something that’s got anything to do with copyright licenses and how they work.
When FSF cooked up the GPL, that was them saying “you can do all normal legal things but in addition to that, we’re also gonna let you distribute provided that so-and-so”. A copyright license can put conditions on the distribution part. But there’s no way for it to put conditions on the use part. We’re gonna have to come up with some other mechanism for that.
And soon, because every fossil capitalist, drone operator, and murderous nazi in the world use some amount of FOSS and commons in their stack. Even recent inventions like ActivyPub got hijacked by Truth and Threads.
It just can’t be a copyright license that fixes this.