> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor 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.
If it was invented for that purpose, isn't that a reason why one shouldn't use the term for things that conflict with that goal?
"Free Software" following GNU also can't have a non-commerce clause (Freedom 0). I totally get that people want to restrict commercial use, but I believe "everyone can use the software" is enough of a core value and a NC-license would be incompatible with so much of the ecosystem that it's fair to classify NC-licenses as something else.
I can see why you might think opensource.com says that open source "literally means the source is public" if you only read the first sentence in their defining article [3]. Fair enough, this is a common misunderstanding [4].
[1] - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
[2] - https://opensource.com/law/10/10/license-compliance-not-prob...
[3] - https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source
[4] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/wenjiazhao/2012/07/06/beliefs-a...
[5] - https://opensource.com/law/13/1/which-open-source-software-l...
