Thanks for your extensive reply! I think I see where our misunderstanding comes from. As I understand, you're seeing the term "open source" literally from the perspective of an individual user. In contrast, my perspective is that of a software maintainer picking a license for their publicly visible project.
When it comes to open source _licenses_ , I assume most people would expect that they comply with the [open source definition](https://opensource.org/osd) of the [Open Source Initiative](https://opensource.org/about). The term "open source" in the context of software was hardly used, if at all, before the term was agreed upon by a [meeting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Origins) in 1998. Now, if a project picks a license and announces its software as "open source", I (and many others) would expect that the license complies with the open source definition, even if technically it doesn't have to. If this expectation isn't met, this comes across as false advertising. Again, I don't expect this thoughtfulness from a regular user of the software, but I usually expect it from developers picking a license for their project. Don't get me wrong, I believe the maintainers of the project have the best intentions about this license. My point is only that advertising the project as "open source" is quite misleading.
