Didn't they start saying "source first" instead of "open source"? What's wrong with that? Nothing about their current licenses stand out as unreasonable to me.

Didn't they start saying "source first" instead of "open source"? What's wrong with that? Nothing about their current licenses stand out as unreasonable to me. Even though their licenses aren't technically "open source" - i.e. not an OSI approved license - their license is clearly in the same spirit and I would absolutely refer to it as "open source" in casual discussion. They did the wrong thing at first, but their intent was obviously not malicious and they corrected it. Why let that undermine the rest of the good things they're doing?