Comment by dragonwriter

> Good. In this case, let it be diluted! These extra "restrictions" don't affect normal people at all,

Yes, they do, and the only reason for using the term “open source” for things whose licensing terms flagrantly defy the Open Source definition is to falsely sell the idea that using the code carries the benefits that are tied to the combination of features that are in the definition and which are lost with only a subset of those features. The freedom to use the software in commercial services is particularly important to end-users that are not interested in running their own services as a guarantee against lock-in and of whatever longevity they are able to pay to have provided even if the original creator later has interests that conflict with offering the software as a commercial service.

If this deception wasn't important, there would be no incentive not to use the more honest “source available for limited uses” description.