My gut reaction to the license was exactly OP's -- it felt shady and sleazy. Then my logic kicked in and I came to the same conclusion you did -- it's not open

My gut reaction to the license was exactly OP's -- it felt shady and sleazy. Then my logic kicked in and I came to the same conclusion you did -- it's not open source, but source-available means people can audit that it's honest. That's a huge win over closed-source, especially for something privacy-focused. I think the gut feeling comes from a long history of projects using source-available licenses in shady ways. The brain pattern-matches. That would be good to address upfront. Simply stating "not open source, but source-auditable" might help address this. Another good thing would be to post the price upfront. Right now, it requires an email to get to which is an antipattern. These issues are cosmetic (but important). This looks like a really good project.