From user's perspective it's open source. From provider's perspective it's not. OSI doesn't distinguish between those two, there is only user, which can be ordinary end user or provider. Because for provider it's not open source, it can't be approved OSI license.

For RSALv2 "Software" and "Modified" is not "software" and "modified". It's capitalized because it refers to terms that are provided in "Definitions" section. From there you have:

    Modify, Modified, or Modification: copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission other than making an exact copy. The resulting work is called a Modified version of the earlier work.

    Redis: the Redis software as described in redis.io.

    Software: certain Software components designed to work with Redis and provided to You under this Agreement.

It's also plain and simple to see why those things are created in the first place. It's because open source has problem with cloud where big players not involved with the project cash out on it by simply selling it as is (as managed service) and by doing it they also automatically strip original authors from any chances of competing.

This effort is targeted solely on cloud providers so original authors of the project get a chance at having viable, sustainable business model.

It's not targeted at users. It's targeted at providers.

SSLPv1 was added into dual licensing to allow open solutions to allow to exist – ie. projects that extend redis but don't monetize on it.

ps. OSI doesn't have (or will ever have?) licenses that are compatible with this new era of cloud providers because it equates end user with cloud provider. This is wrong and people will have to invent new adjectives/nouns to describe what they mean by open source contribution + not allowed to leech on us (compete with us through cloud offering without giving us a cut).

[0] https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...