[gr4vityWall]

> we should find a term (better than 'source-available' [...])

That term already exists: it's proprietary software.

If you're going to restrict what users can do with their copies of the program, please do not try to label the program as Free Software / open-source.

[ahartmetz]

Maximalism and lack of nuance aren't going to fix the world. Though, neither is lack of thinking things through. I'm not sure how people, including myself, would feel about the situation if the company using a "Bear-like" license was, say, Oracle or Microsoft.

[drdaeman]

Using the well-established terms according to their intended definitions is surely not maximalism or lack of nuance.

(I have no objections against the “source available” though - it’s a pretty unambiguous and useful term, that isolates one specific property.)