Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition[0] doesn't permit discrimination against fields of endeavor. A license that discriminates between personal and business use is neither Open Source nor Free. The dichotomy between Free and Open Source software centers around political ideas around protecting user freedom. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ Edit: re: your "hopes and dreams" edit - I think it's safe to sa…
My mistake! Thanks for making me aware of the term source-available and the BSL. > Just don't call those types of licenses "open source". They aren't. Those who attempt to free-ride on the goodwill.. Well, to be honest, organisations can't lay claim to general language concepts. Many many people use "open source" to just mean "source openly accesible", and use "permissive source" for stuff licensed with GPL/BSD/Apach…
The fact that many people use the phrase incorrectly is exactly the problem that needs correcting. Licenses gave very real legal consequences, and calling yourself Open Source when you're not is not a good way to create confidence with potential customers.