The main problem is that most open source projects include contributions from dozens if not hundreds (or thousands) of contributors, which means the copyright ownership is just as atomized. Unless you can get all those contributors (many of whom are probably dead or cannot be contacted) to agree, the terms can't be changed.

A handful of projects require copyright assignment to an organization. Those could practically change licenses, but people in general are less willing to contribute to such projects because it's much more likely the organization will sell out and profit from their volunteer labor (See MySQL). The handful of organizations which won't sell out (like the FSF) are run by libs who are true believers in "the freedom to use the software for any purpose."

Practically speaking, if any software were going to be licensed with a BDS clause, it would have to start that way from day one. You might run into the problem @cawsby points out though, where the courts refuse to enforce it and it becomes effectively meaningless in practice (doesn't make it any less worth doing though, just makes the bourgeois courts look like pricks).