Some people have tried, for example https://commonsclause.com/
but it breaks the definition of "open source". With that additional clause it's just "source available". (Some people disagree and call it "open source" anyway.)
"Open source" is an established term, so CC rider in fact breaks it.
Under CC-like conditions the source is accessible, as it is hackable, derivatives are permitted and they are usable. So it is technically "open" in a conventional sense of the word. There are however strings attached, so it's not free or libre. You can't do whatever you want with it, your freedoms are restricted.
On the other hand, it is still more permissive than what's described as "shared source", because the latter doesn't usually allow for changes or even usage.
So there's basically a distinct license category that lies between the "open source" and "shared source". There's no established name for it, but clumping it with "shared source" is not just.
"open source" has largely been transformed by large corporations to mean "dev friendly" but user hostile. This is why Libre or "Free" Software continues to further seperate itself from "Open Source"
The Googles, and Microsoft of the world want developer tools, libraries, frameworks etc to be open but not end user software for which they commercialize.
They also do not want to limit their ability to take an "open source" software and make it a SaaS or PaaS on their cloud.
At this point, "open source" is openly hostile to Free Software
A lot of organizations may behave that way, but open source itself is not hostile to free software. Keep in mind that basically everything that qualifies as free software also qualifies as open source.
Open Source is made up by the organizations that represent Open Source. As such if the Organizations are hostile to Free Software, then Open Source is hostile, you can not separate the 2 like you are attempting
Sure under a technical definition Open Source all Free Software is open source, however not all Open Source software is Free Software.
That is the core of the problem, as we move forward in time, the amount of software that is "Open Source" while not being Free expands, not contracts.
> Open Source is made up by the organizations that represent Open Source. As such if the Organizations are hostile to Free Software, then Open Source is hostile, you can not separate the 2 like you are attempting
In my mind, it's only licenses and the software they're applied to, not organizations, that can be open source or not.
> Sure under a technical definition Open Source all Free Software is open source, however not all Open Source software is Free Software.
Neither category is a subset of the other. For example, SQLite is free software but not open source, because the Free Software Definition includes public domain software, but the Open Source Definition explicitly excludes it. And prior to Perl's adoption of the GPL, it was open source but not free software due to the Artistic License 1.0. Anyway, keep in mind that these examples are really rare, and that the vast majority of programs are either both or neither.
> That is the core of the problem, as we move forward in time, the amount of software that is "Open Source" while not being Free expands, not contracts.
I can't think of any programs in recent times that are open source but not free software. Do you know of any?
Sorry, I indeed should have said "deliberately" or "intentionally" instead of "explicitly". What I meant was that it's not included, and that not including it was a conscious choice rather than an oversight:
My reading is the core problem is that not every jurisdiction recognizes public domain dedications, so for some people, such software may be no different than "all rights reserved".
Microsoft was fond of this concept before embracing open source. Depending on how one feels about whether Microsoft has abandoned the other two Es, that could be a bad sign, or a ringing endorsement of the "official" definition because even Microsoft lets people use their code under it.
