I for one disagree that software can't be "open source" if the OSI says it's not open source. There are varying degrees of open source. Since when do they get the right to define what is "open source"?
In my view, "open source" but doesn't give you permission to host a commercial service that directly competes with it, is still a degree of open source, and reasonable.
In my view, "open source" but doesn't give you permission to host a commercial service that directly competes with it, is still a degree of open source, and reasonable.