One serious danger to the free software community is the Contributor Covenant, a popular code of conduct that has made its way into Github and even the Linux kernel.

Here are some troubling aspects of the code of conduct:

We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

This would make it a punishable offense to disagree with someone for eating too much, for using a pronoun they disagree with, for mentioning their race, or for disagreeing with their religion. In truth, it opens up the door to ban and ostracize developers and users for almost any and every reason, depending upon the whim of the person enforcing the code of conduct.

Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

This has been interpreted in the past to make it a punishable offense to criticize a project leader for any reason. It can be interpreted as a blanket ban on any form of disagreement or dissent. Remember, constructive criticism is often misinterpreted as a personal attack.

Quite frankly, maybe an incompetent project leader needs to be trolled from time to time.

This code of conduct is impossible to enforce fairly because it makes everyone an offender.

The author of the code of conduct then went on to create the Hippocratic License as part of the misguided Ethical Source movement. Take a look closely and you will see how this software restricts your freedom of speech as well as your freedom to use the software.

All of these technologies are inherently political. There is no neutral political position in technology. You can’t build systems that can be weaponized against marginalized people and take no responsibility for them.

In other words, the Hippocratic License demands you share the same political beliefs or you are not allowed to use the software. It dictates how you can use the software. This software is not free!

Introducing the Hippocratic License: an Ethical Source license that specifically prohibits the use of software to violate universal standards of human rights, and embodying the principles of Ethical Source Software.

The FAQ is even worse:

Doesn’t the Hippocratic License violate the “No Discrimination” and “Fields of Endeavor” terms of the Open Source Definition?
No Groups or Fields are discriminated against by the Hippocratic License. People in the Groups are welcome to use software under the Hippocratic License in their Fields. The restrictions in the Hippocratic License target specific activities, not groups of people or fields of work. The restrictions apply equally to all people and all groups, in all fields of endeavor. Therefore, the restrictions are not discriminatory in any way.

This is completely untrue. It will be used specifically to target political and religious groups that do not agree with the copyright owner's definition of human rights. This is because enforcement is not handled by courts but by the developer:

Unlike many other licenses, which rely on courts to settle issues of license violations, the Hippocratic License puts the power of enforcement directly in the hands of the code’s creators.

You get no trial, no evidence, no witnesses. If the copyright owner unilaterally declares that you have violated human rights, you need to stop using the software immediately or face a copyright infringement lawsuit. No code for you!

Supported by corporate monopolies, not by the users

Look how Copyleftconf's main sponsors are Microsoft, Google, and Salesforce. How can this be representative of what the users want? How can they pretend to be speaking for freedom?

FOSS Leaders Reject Ethical Licenses

Perens said he resigned because the OSI appears to have already decided to accept the license. He said he's headed in a different direction, which he called "coherent open source." "We've gone the wrong way with licensing," he said, citing the proliferation of software licenses.
It was a deliberate decision that Debian’s definition of Free software would not discriminate against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor (essentially anything someone might want to do).
The idea behind this was that Freedom meant Freedom for everyone, not just Freedom for people we approved of...It meant that the Debian system could be a common ground for the sharing of software among people who did not agree on social issues, and just maybe that it would be a way for those various people to work together and gain respect for each other, and ultimately come to greater agreement