[swyx]

> mimic the prestige of open source by saying "source available"

no, its just the correct term, we literally ask people who use the wrong license to change their terminology to "source available", lets not punish people who do it right from the get go

[inktype]

You misunderstood my comment; we probably agree. If something isn't open source, it shouldn't be labeled as open source.

I'm saying that there ought to be a more descriptive term for this license to differentiate from the usual proprietary "source available" licenses. ezekg's comment gives an appropriately descriptive label, "Fair Source".