This is some kind of software license libertarianism. It falls down because the distinction between a negative and positive right isn't objectively defined; in any conflict between people, both sides will be able to argue that they just wanted to be left alone and it's the other person who's infringing on their rights.
If someone uses the software in a CCTV system, can someone else claim they're being stressed out from being spied on and that's impairing their ability to use the software? If someone sells plugins for the program and someone asks them to make a plugin for their gay wedding and they don't want to, who's preventing whom from exercising their permissions? Someone who doesn't believe in property rights could argue that anyone who uses this software on a computer that they don't allow other people to use and administer is violating this license.
This is like thinking you can make a law that people have to leave each other alone
If someone uses the software in a CCTV system, can someone else claim they're being stressed out from being spied on and that's impairing their ability to use the software? If someone sells plugins for the program and someone asks them to make a plugin for their gay wedding and they don't want to, who's preventing whom from exercising their permissions? Someone who doesn't believe in property rights could argue that anyone who uses this software on a computer that they don't allow other people to use and administer is violating this license.