The biggest problem with such a clause is that it is hard to define "evil", even if it seems clear to you. Some people think that abortion is evil, so are abortion clinics banned from Json? What about the military and weapon manufacturers? Killing is evil, but you all know how the discourse about the military as national heroes that can't be evil in the US goes. What about a service like X - is it evil? Can you define "evil" for a surveillance tool that brands itself as ad tech?
Wait I though the point of these post-opensource clauses (see also: anti-capitalist licence, WTFPL, etc.) was to scare off the big corporations lawyers and make sure your code won't end up in AWS or something like that? Are Linux distros the only actors who are still giving a shit about licencing?
Spoilsports. Next they'll be telling me I can't use apple software in the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons.
OK but how can json have a license? I understand a particular json parser having a license, but how can a specification, which contains no code, even be considered "software"?
The FSF also lists any software as non-free which uses the beer license (use the software in any way you want, and should you ever meet the author, pay them a beer).
Everybody gangsta with the "don't be evil" clause until the authors turn out to be a nutjob who thinks trans people are blights against God and must be exterminated.
I doubt (or at least hope) that that's not what they think, but hopefully that illustrates why the clause is dumb.