All the BSL/SSPL ones shouldn't be in an "open source" section. Just change the heading to "source available" or put them with the "vendors".
Author of the blog post in question here. Let me clarify: they shouldn't be there because they're not OSI-approved, right? Just wanna get your point here. (While I understand that BSL/SSPL lack certain liberties, I deemed it okay to mark them as "open source" for the purposes of this post.)
Not just lack of OSI approval, they're attempting to redefine the long accepted meaning of open source to include their new licenses. They want the goodwill of being "open source" without the obligations. The only sorts of licenses that have consistently been considered open source are either copyleft licenses like the GPL and do whatever the hell you want licenses like MIT and Apache. Do whatever you want... unless you're a big corporation... or unless you're part of a group the authors deem evil/immoral/unethical... etc. is a massive departure from the spirit of the term open source.