Ask HN: Which OSS licence? I don't want one specific company to touch it?

You can license your project however you would like to. You absolutely can have a license with text that is similar to the MIT license, except with a clause saying that company X can't use it. However, as other commentators here point out, you could not, in good faith, call that "open source" under the standard, accepted definitions of that term.

So the answer to "is there any way to achieve this?" is twofold. If the question is "can I achieve this and still legitimately use the term 'Open source software'?", the answer is a flat-out "no". If the question is "can I set it up legally in this way, without regards to the terminology", the answer is yes.

A license is a pretty free-form thing. You can write whatever text there you want. You may wish to consult with a lawyer, in order to get some legal assurance that what you wrote makes legal sense and will hold up in court. This is especially true if you want to be very sure that you didn't accidentally leave some loophole in your wording that will allow the company you dislike to use your project against your will.

You are going to have to write the text of this license yourself (or pay a lawyer to do it for you): you're not going to find much of this kind of "almost-OSS" license out there for you to base yours off of, because in general, those who want to license their software as OSS actually do want a fully OSS license. But there are a few examples, although not quite identical in spirit to your "use case" (excluding a particular company) but instead different variations of not-quite open source. For instance, you can take a look at MongoDB's SSPL (https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license), and Redis Lab's RSAL (https://live-redislabs.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/20...).

There is certainly a way to do this, but by definition such a license would not be “open source.” See clause 5 of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

A good compromise that would keep things equal for everyone would be to use a strong copyleft license (GPL). Normally when I think of specific scenarios involving companies using it (a real issue that has come up for me before), GPL was strongly considered as an option. Not to prevent them from using it, but rather to ensure that they don't use the free software to gain a further advantage without giving their own improvements to that same software back to the community.

Your property, you have the right to do disposal, it is not important to comply with the open source definition.

What’s your objective for the project?

You can do anything, but a weird license restriction is going to turn off many potential users. I don’t know or care about who you dislike, and my counsel will not sign off on deploying something that cannot be used by some random people.

Instead of targeting a specific company why not prohibit the use case you don’t like? Otherwise I have to agree with others that this seems retributive and childish.

This is antithetical to the entire notion of open source. It also sounds like a childish tantrum.

Why?