"Open source with a non-free license" essentially doesn't exist.
The opensource definition [0] and free software definition [1] are similar enough in outcome (if not intent) that such a thing is basically impossible.
Last time I looked the only difference between the OSI's and FSF's lists of acceptable licenses was the OpenWatcom license, which requires you to release the source even when you just deploy it privately. This was a mistake on part of the OSI and should not have been accepted. At least Debian, Fedora and the FSF consider it to be unacceptable.
The opensource definition [0] and free software definition [1] are similar enough in outcome (if not intent) that such a thing is basically impossible.
Last time I looked the only difference between the OSI's and FSF's lists of acceptable licenses was the OpenWatcom license, which requires you to release the source even when you just deploy it privately. This was a mistake on part of the OSI and should not have been accepted. At least Debian, Fedora and the FSF consider it to be unacceptable.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html