https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/, specifically: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyon

https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/, specifically: > 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. It's true that people are starting to make a distinction between "free software" and "open source," but generally the distinction is smaller than what you're saying. The broader class of programs whose code is available for viewing and (potential) use or modification subject to restrictions, has been called "source available," and I think that's a great description of what it is and sets expectations well. You may or may not have a license to use it, but you can see the source code. For example, the Business Source License is generally not considered open-source. It places restrictions on what you can do. I kind of hate being pedantic about this, but I also dislike the deliberate misuse of the term, especially by a company that is obviously quite familiar with publishing large amounts of high-quality software that's genuinely open source.