Usage of "Open Source" wording relative to license

[ssddanbrown]

Hello 👋,
I just wanted to raise the usage of "open source", within this repo, your website, and marketing, since you're using a license that specifically limits certain use-cases and therefore is not typically considered open source, as it does not meet the commonly considered open source definition. It is instead often referred to instead as "source available" or "fair code".

While I understand & respect the desire & right to protect your business interests, and I appreciate that some form of openness is better then being closed, I'd worry that calling this "open source" may mislead folks into thinking the project may afford freedoms that the license restricts, and the philosophy of the project is one that is not represented by the actual license in use.

If it helps, I've written more about why I think the term (and addressing it's potential mis-use) "open source" is important on my blog here.