I don't like any of these licenses, but if I was playing devil's advocate here, "open source" as a term on its own surely just implies the source code is publicly available? Which it is.
Although, on the other hand, "Two years after release, the license for each applicable version of Liquibase Community code reverts to Apache 2.0". So, it's like... eventually open source. Which is still misleading, as it doesn't apply to the current versions.
I think everyone thinks the way they understand open source is the way everyone understands open source. And yet every time an open source project, by any definition, changes their license, people debate what open source really means.
Unlike a term born with a specific definition, like "FOSS", open source doesn't really have a definition. The OSI has a definition that seems to be most popular, but that's not the only understanding of the term that is doing the rounds.
For plenty of people, open source means "source-available software". For others, it's software licensed under a subset of specific licenses (which licenses is also a subject for debate). And for some it means "software developed in a specific way that involves the community", like many Linux adjacent projects are, disqualifying corporate projects licensed under those specific licenses because they can do a Liquibase any time they want and there's very little chance a community large enough to maintain and develop the existing code will stand up when they do.
Liquibase now falls under one of the three definitions I've heard people agree about rather than two.
Funnily enough, the Liquibase project agrees with this sentiment too (or wants to avoid the fallout from open source gatekeepers): https://github.com/liquibase/liquibase/pull/7380
It's like me starting the cheese initiative and trying to control what others call cheese, a job that's typically reserved for governments.
I also don't care if somebody in 1975 said "I like to be open, and I'll let anyone look at the source." Old McDonald had a farm before McDonald's was a restaurant, but that doesn't mean that if you open a restaurant called McDonald's that is decorated like a McDonald's, you're not a scammer. I know your plastic fruit is carbon-based, but if you label it as "organic" you're a thief.
If you're not trying to scam people, be creative and make up your own catchphrase for letting people look at your source code - or don't even, because the whole idea of having a branding for allowing people access (and rights to) the source is imitation of the FSF and OSI.
Open Source isn't a brand, it isn't a trademark, it was hijacked by OSI to enforce their specific interpretation of a phrase that was already in use. OSI wasn't founded until 1998, over a decade after the term open source software became popular and was used throughout the unix and linux communities and in businesses such as Caldera. Before OSI came up with the OSD many creators of open source software had non-compete clauses in the licence.
Like I said above, they're as official as the cheese initiative I just made up.
No government has endorsed them, and open source is not a protected name in any country I am aware of.
They're just some arrogant American organisation that expects the entire world to bend to their whim, as usual.
They have successfully convinced a generation of developers that “Open Source” is pure and holy, but a licensee that includes a term that says something like no company making more than $100 million per year can use this software for free is unclean and maybe even evil.
They don’t want alternative licenses to exist because it hurts their bottom line.