It's actually kind of funny, because unless I'm missing something, my girlfriend is allowed to download the software, relicense it under a license of her choosing or release it into the public domain, and then send the sanitized version on to me. Not only that, but there's no mechanism for someone to prove that this didn't happen if I simply do it myself. I guess that's why you don't try to write a license!

You just described the problem with Black Empowerment policies in South Africa and "Bumiputra" policies in Malaysia. They often don't actually empower the majority, instead producing a cohort of well connected crony types who essentially rent out their membership in the disadvantaged class to the "exploiters".

What you could be missing is that the goal of this license is not to protect this not-so-important piece of software but to give you (?) a sense of what institutional discrimination feels like.

As a white heterosexual male, it does make me think.

> As a white heterosexual male, it does make me think.

All it achieved here is made me immediately lose trust in the person who wrote the software and dismiss what they were trying to put forward (which was only mildly related to the license).

Then again, I have that same reaction whenever I see anyone being racist/sexist/xenophobic or what have you, whether it's towards me or someone else. So maybe you're right.

But I don't think humanity has ever solved a problem by doing it to other people. "I'm gonna be sexist to men just to show THEM what it's like!" doesn't just seem dumb, it's also counterproductive.

> … give you (?) a sense of what institutional discrimination feels like.

> As a white heterosexual male, it does make me think.

As a white heterosexual male, I've been the victim of institutional discrimination. In fact, people like me are the only ones it's considered okay to discriminate against.

While that is an interesting side effect, it's not the listed intent.

"This license serves as a form of communal Affirmative Action." - http://nonwhiteheterosexualmalelicense.org/why/

> Regardless, it's a wonderful way to get your work/license dismissed as non-free software, as non-professional, and as offensive all at the same time

While since either the terms offered to the preferred class or those offered to the non-preferred class seem to meet the free software definition (the non-preferred class gets pretty much equivalent to BSDL terms, the preferred class gets somewhat more generous terms), it seems to be an offensive, non-professional but Free (permissive, non-copyleft) license.

That, of course, assumes that the contradiction between the last two bullets and the first two is resolved in favor of the last two being controlling. Though, if the first two are controlling where they conflict, its just a clumsy, unprofessional way of producing the effect of a straight 2-clause BSDL, which is also Free.