Call it "shared source", "visible source" or something, but open source is a well-established term meaning something else (2.) .
Bad analogy: If your cellphone provider starts advertising voice for $0 as "free speech" and then goes "technically, this is what these words mean ...", you would simply say they are using these words wrong.
Perfect analogy. Mobile phone operators are doing exactly that in the country I live in and it annoys the hell out of me.
I might have misunderstood what this is
Just because you have open source doesn't mean you are Open Source.
The restrictions in the mendaciously named "commons clause" license are excluded by the FSD, BFSG and the file-off-the-serial-numbers copy of it that is the OSD.
"Keep headers" or "share and share alike" are not restrictions on use, although every April first do I realise that I once again haven't sent out a fake press release about how the BSD licenses discriminate against my source file header-removal business.