Unfortunately the problem is simple: - It's only considered an open source license by the wider FOSS community if it's approved by the OSI. - The OSI doesn't

Unfortunately the problem is simple: - It's only considered an open source license by the wider FOSS community if it's approved by the OSI. - The OSI doesn't feel it's their job to enable open source companies to survive, and has refused to vet any licenses that prevent service-wrapping. (SSPL is a solid option, or something like it, it's basically an aggressive copyleft.) As such, as long as the OSI is viewed as the definitive word on what is and isn't open source, and the OSI refuses to act, the problem will remain. I am confused at the OSI's behavior here, as it leads to only two outcomes: Open source dies as a viable business leading to nobody caring about the OSI, or people move on from entrusting the OSI to rule on open source. They literally have an extinction-level event on their hands and have decided it just isn't a big deal to them.