In their trademark guidelines they say: "Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo." As a listed e

In their trademark guidelines they say: "Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo." As a listed example it's unacceptable to say: "Open Source Project." It's fair for the OSI to try and protect branding of FOSS as increasing user freedoms. I think ethical source licenses are doing the same within a broader human rights framework (others may disagree). SSPL on the other hand is decreasing freedoms without question, you can't start a competing service without onerous disclosures that have little do with the software in question. Other licenses in the same vein are even more explicit in their discontent of any contributions, but development is done in the open. It's fair to call the later "source available" which is an accurate representation of what they are doing or make up another name like the ethical source people did.