I kinda think "open" is a word that's immediately undermined by any qualification.

I'm really down for more variety with licenses like this one, but "open source" has become really unhelpful because it's used for:

- Open source for half the code, and the other half is proprietary

- Open source as long as you aren't a company

- Open source as long as you aren't a company competing with us

It's helpful to have a term for "free to do whatever you want with", but we don't really have on that doesn't get misused elsewhere right now.

You don't like open source but want to ride off its good name so you're co-opting the term to mean something else. We already have a widely accepted term for this type of license - "source available".