Uh.. I actually often do. I would more, but it generally isn't appreciated and is off topic of the main thread. Here, the software license is a key component of the release seeing as it is a unique component of it.
>Open source is about the source being open plus certain benefits.
It's more than that. The key intent of OSS is the right to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. The source code is just a prereq for that ability.
I did initially use stallman-esque language, since it's terminology most people are familiar with in this field, but I'll approach it from a different point since I personally have problems with strong copy-left licenses.
The primary thing this license doesn't do is allow distribution in the OSS spirit. This is really just a pervasive license, actually in some ways similar to the Stallman-esque virality except with a corporate intent. It simply masquerades as OSS.