It's customary on HN to avoid a repetition of a topic that's already being actively discussed. The original post is still on the front page and the licensing issue is being heavily discussed there. I've linked to your post from that thread.
But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, which would be a much less gratifying discussion.
(I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29425675> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42679582>