It is incompatible with all widely adopted definitions of Free software. If you restrict who can use your software, how, or for what purpose, it's fundamentally unfree.
The term that doesn't make any claims about whether a piece of software respects user freedoms is source-available, which these "everyone except the bad guys" licenses are commonly categorized as.
I'm a software dev and I do not consider anti-freedom-0 source available software to be free software in any meaningful way. If the original author can tell me I'm not legally allowed to use their software unless I hold to a poltical standard they impose, then the software might as well be proprietary.
I think you misunderstood my comment, which is understandable as it was double negative
I was pointing out that devs are perfectly fine with the official definition of free software - and the only ones wanting to extend it further are people that wish to incorrectly label their software as open source - which usually are CEOs of companies which want to portrait their closed software as open for marketing reasons.
IANAL, but I think your cited example would not fall under the open source label either. And all devs I know would prefer the definition of the term to be kept as is, making it not open source.
It's incompatible with 1 definition of free software. More and more developers are unhappy with this definition.