That’s a legal, not a social statement. Following the letter of the document that governs your work doesn’t mean you still can’t do something that would be inconsiderate.
Legal documents don’t really make an affordance for what would be impolite versus what would be against the license. Usually I think the unwritten expectations work out ok (for example, in a project I help maintain I recently wrote out an apology for stepping away from development and ignoring contributions to fulfill these obligations) but perhaps writing it down in some sort of Code of Conduct style document might be beneficial.
I think that people have pretty much put their "core values" into their licenses these days. People who don't want Amazon to run their software as a service use the AGPL. People that don't really want an open source project but want to put "open source!!!11!" on the box add caveats like "you can't run this code on a device you didn't buy from us" (very common in the keyboard firmware market).
If people aren't choosing a license compatible with their values, then that's on them. The era of Github only giving you free hosting if you pick a DFSG-compatible license are long over; you could put the Windows source code on Github and they would be happy to use a heart emoji to describe how they feel about it.
