Language matters and distinctions matter and branding matters. If you believe that OSS > Source Available > Closed Source that doesn't mean you want the concept

Language matters and distinctions matter and branding matters. If you believe that OSS > Source Available > Closed Source that doesn't mean you want the concept of OSS to be diluted by Source Available. If you want to release a Source Available piece of code then all the power to you. But don't call it Open Source Software (or whatever vague variant of that implication you use) unless it actually is. Source Available should stand or fall on it's own merits and not by trying to co-opt the goodwill that OSS has built up over the last many decades. edit: This is a license that doesn't allow source code modifications to be released and only after feedback does it even allow you to run source code modifications privately. That very much is not in the "spirit of open source."