[1]https://polyformproject.org/licenses/
[2]https://blog.timescale.com/blog/building-open-source-busines...
Those other two licenses you listed are either fully non-commercial (polyform) or have a clause preventing cloud hosting SaaS (timescale).
I am not going to get into discussion about who has the right to define "open-source", but having the right to commercially profit off of the software is one of the key OSI defined tenets which those two licenses lack.
In the end, AGPL may be able to achieve the same goal of preventing parasitic SaaS solutions that don't contribute back into the community.
Whether or not a copyleft can be considered to be Free is a long-standing argument between the "GNU" and "BSD" schools of thought, albeit the former has long since won out in the broader marketplace of Free Software. I personally hold copyleft as Free, because the conditions that you have to satisfy in order to exercise your freedoms are marginal. In contrast, Polyform and TimescaleDB place a whole host of permanent restrictions on user freedom. It's not "oh you need to give someone the source if you're also giving them a binary", it's "you can't ever host this on a cloud server without paying us". You are defining a particular use of the software that only you can enjoy and nobody else can.
No, its really not.
Pretty much everyone agrees that copyleft is Free (and Open), they just disagree on whether, and for what purposes, it is a more desirable Free/Open license style than permissive.