I think your entire comment can be reduced to you thinking that some limited subset of discrimination based on usage is acceptable, being justified by the market dynamics. That's a fine viewpoint but it simply isn't the accepted definition of "open source". You might not have been aware of that, or you might think that we'd all be better off if that wasn't the case, but those things simply don't change the reality that there is, in fact, a widely understood definition for the term.
The reason people are such sticklers about that particular definition is because the term carries a lot of weight due to the history behind it. Permitting any drift in the ideology enables things that don't match the history to ride on the coattails of the projects that came before.
It's worth noting that if the SSPL is really so beneficial with zero or near zero drawbacks then there's no need to become embroiled in debates over the ideology to begin with. Plainly state that it isn't "open source", make clear what the difference is, and no one will have any room to complain. You can even coin a new term to make room for license variants. If it's a beneficial arrangement then people will naturally use the license.
The reason people are such sticklers about that particular definition is because the term carries a lot of weight due to the history behind it. Permitting any drift in the ideology enables things that don't match the history to ride on the coattails of the projects that came before.
It's worth noting that if the SSPL is really so beneficial with zero or near zero drawbacks then there's no need to become embroiled in debates over the ideology to begin with. Plainly state that it isn't "open source", make clear what the difference is, and no one will have any room to complain. You can even coin a new term to make room for license variants. If it's a beneficial arrangement then people will naturally use the license.