Not much more strict than CC-BY-NC, unless I’m missing something? The “you may not represent your fork as my product” is a good abuse prevention that I’m not sure the equivalent CC contains, good call including that.
This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
there's nothing wrong with source-available, but source-available and open-source are not equivalent.
It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
It's not open for them to use.
To argue otherwise is to confuse a window with a door.