This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.
> As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project.
> So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...]
The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open.
> We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness.
They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.
Is fair source more open than source-available? Yes.
Is open source more open than fair source? Yes.
I don't see any attempt at communicating otherwise. Nobody is claiming fair source is as open as open source. Fair source is very clearly defined as not being open source, but it is closer to open source than the alternatives, and even becomes open source, and that's a good thing. We should all be happy about that. But people still find fault...
The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the word "open." It has meaning, and in these cases it's being used appropriately. It's not an attempt at openwashing.
The world isn't so black and white.
> and that doesn't make any sense.
It makes sense to quite a lot of other commenters here. I'm afraid you're coming across as trying a bit hard not to understand the issues being raised.
No, it's being presented as an alternative to being properly closed source.
IMO, it’s silly to insinuate the OP is obtuse while looking quite obtuse yourself.