Unless you can describe the bad behaviour in question, it just looks like an attempt to make more proprietary software for personal gain. The FAQ does not answ

Unless you can describe the bad behaviour in question, it just looks like an attempt to make more proprietary software for personal gain. The FAQ does not answer the patent comment's good questions. Why have you chosen a name so similar to Creative Commons, when you seem to prefer the term Source Available from a descriptive point of view? Frankly, it just sounds like an attempt to pass off software licensed under this abhorrent license term as Creative Commons.