Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential to the question being posed which has a very clear and straightforward answer.
I hope more companies consider this unusual arrangement at least as an alternative to other approaches. Permissively licensed binaries can come in handy, though it certainly comes with it's risks. For example, Microsoft released the binaries for its WebView2 SDK under the BSD license; this is nice of course, but the side-effect is that we can (and did) reverse engineer the loader binary back to source code. I suspect that's unlikely to happen for any substantially large commercial product, and I am not a lawyer so I can't be sure this isn't still legally dubious, but it's still worth considering: the protections of a EULA are completely gone here, if you just distribute binaries under a vanilla permissive open source license.
I hope more companies consider this unusual arrangement at least as an alternative to other approaches. Permissively licensed binaries can come in handy, though it certainly comes with it's risks. For example, Microsoft released the binaries for its WebView2 SDK under the BSD license; this is nice of course, but the side-effect is that we can (and did) reverse engineer the loader binary back to source code. I suspect that's unlikely to happen for any substantially large commercial product, and I am not a lawyer so I can't be sure this isn't still legally dubious, but it's still worth considering: the protections of a EULA are completely gone here, if you just distribute binaries under a vanilla permissive open source license.