Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool.
Some folks are working on terminology over here, if you're curious.
https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issue...
Some folks are working on terminology over here, if you're curious.
https://github.com/softwarecommons/softwarecommons.com/issue...
The non-ideological value of open source is exactly the commodification that the retreat to source available licensing seeks to end, along with downstream consequences of that commodification.
It is not a problem of terminology.
It's not that it's uncool, it's just not true and reflective of reality. There's a world of difference between a .zip on an FTP ("source available because GPL says it must be") and everything still happening in public on GitHub and everyone still being able to contribute if they want to. Both are technically "source available".