Yes, really. The terms are so loose they are unusable, which is a large part of the problem. Whether something is "open source" is usually determined by The Op

Yes, really. The terms are so loose they are unusable, which is a large part of the problem. Whether something is "open source" is usually determined by The Open Source Definition, maintained by the Open Source Initiative. In this case, the problematic part would be: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." In practice this means clauses like "you cannot use this software for evil" or "you cannot use this software for illegal stuff" mean it is no longer open source. We've seen this before with The JSON License and many others, and the argument is well-settled.