I sometimes amuse myself with the idea of creating a software license out of spite for certain organisation, a kind of black list if you will, like Arya Starks kill list but more childish. At any rate you'd probably want to look into all the ways rich people make money with not-for-profits. The difference in intent and word of law is damn difficult problem to solve.
How about something a bit different: a license that prevents Github hosting?
That should be easy.
You create two licenses for your software: a license for the code per se, and a separate one for your git repo of the software.
So that is to say, for instance, your program could be MIT licensed. But your git repository (all the Git objects and meta-data: commit messages, hashes, branches, tags, ...) could have a more restrictive license which asserts "this may not be mirrored on Github".
It's intriguing. If we regard the work you're creating to be your git repo, then that is not free. If we regard the work you're creating to be baselines of an artifact that you're committing to the git repo, then that is free.
