> I disagree. It depends if you're forking it to use it, or if you're forking it to compete commercially against the authors.

The problem is that whilst the license attempts to define what "competes" means, it's not a good definition. Specifically:

  Competing Uses specifically include using the Software:
  1.  as a substitute for any of our products or services;
  2. in a way that exposes the APIs of the Software; and
  3. in a product or service that offers the same or substantially similar functionality to the Software.

(1) & (3) are highly subjective, and (2) attempts to assert a copyright claim over APIs (definitely doesn't work across most jurisdictions). No-one is going to seriously use this software with such a badly written and vague license.

(I suspect this is on purpose, and the actual motivation of the license author is to try and discourage anyone else from using / forking the software, whilst at the same time getting marketing cred for pretending to be "open". It's a source-available license. Others may come to different conclusions).