> The Canvas format is MIT licensed in the same way that Markdown uses a BSD-type license.
In no sense are these two things comparable. "Markdown uses a BSD-type license" is a true statement because "Markdown", in the context where it makes sense to say this, is a Perl script—a program, licensed in a way that is not uncommon for open source programs to be licensed. Your canvas format is not a program. It's a 70-line TypeScript interface definition, going by your own link:
<https://github.com/obsidianmd/obsidian-api/blob/master/canva...>
To call this "open source" (let alone open source "in the same way that Markdown" is) is a very odd choice. It's less odd for anyone who recognizes that it follows a common pattern, where folks with something to sell often openwash what it is that they're selling based on the (not unfounded) perception that having it be thought of as more open than it really is tends to confer certain positive benefits. It's why Steve Jobs lied about FaceTime being an open standard, for example.
Whether or not you're giving any explicit permission to build apps, scripts, plugins, etc. is largely moot—to be frank, you don't have the power to dictate otherwise. On the other hand, if you're saying that you're aiming to steward and participate in what (you hope) turns out to be a vibrant ecosystem built on a common format, then that's cool. But say what you mean, though. Calling it an open format or an open standard would be fine; "open source", however, this is not.