> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Any restrictions on commercial use make a license not open source.
> The terminology of FOSS was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts.
Conflating open source software with free software isn't precise which is why I prefer FOSS/FLOSS as a term. The conflation you put forward is a political stance, not factual.
You seem to be trying to redefine Open Source to mean something different than what it has meant for nearly two decades. Please don't. Open Source very much includes the principle of no discrimination against commercial use, and has done so from its beginnings.
