That's a good read. But the discussion over the true meaning of open source, foss, libre etc is ongoing and has never been settled so please don't pretend some blog post by richard stallman is the end of the discussion. He's not the one to base your opinions as fact off of. In the first place, open source/libre/foss began largely due to unix v bsd, and opposition to licenses that invite that kind of litigation are properly viewed with suspicion and other even stronger feelings. And it goes without saying that licenses like that are like a landlord promising you he'll fix the shower, get rid of the cockroaches, and fix the leaky ceiling, but only once you've signed the lease.

Aside from that, I'm sure you're aware of how trendy it is to be open source, and how lots of vaporware companies start off with licenses just like this, go proprietary, enshittify and quickly die off, leaving a community built software in the hands of vulture capital.

So it's a good read but it's not the last word, nor does it speak to the actual heart of the discussion

Open source is “here’s my code, do whatever you want with it idec”. Source available is “I’ll let you see it, but you can’t alter or use it.”

I don’t know what y’all are talking about heated debate. Open source =! Source available.

You can find the open source definition here:

https://opensource.org/osd/