Comment by pgeorgi

The problem is that proprietary licenses (such as Source Available) are viral: whatever they touch becomes proprietary.

As such, "most repos are open source" (from what I can see: MIT, some forked ones Apache 2.0) is nice, but the end product still isn't open source according to OSD.

There are people who value using "Open Source" for OSD-compliant licenses only (I tend to agree with that notion to keep things clear), but I didn't really want to discuss this: It's your project, after all, license as you wish.

I just wanted to provide a heads-up that the use of "open source" in the header here (and the front page on your site) doesn't match the expectations of a bunch of folks, so they know whether to look closer or not based on that.

I see how making the entire situation transparent muddies the message, but "Everything is Source Available, many parts are Open Source" would already clear things up a lot.