> Some licenses might allow you to distribute binaries with extra restrictions, but the one you chose almost certainly doesn't

The OSMF EULA has been through a few lawyers now. If you're a lawyer, we're happy to have the discussion on the Open Source Maintenance Fee's Discussion forum.

> So your nuget package and github release would be a binary distribution, what license applies?

If I understand your question correctly, the EULA applies to the binary distribution.

> Your license essentially explicitly disallows you from doing what your trying to do.

No. The source code is available, and there are no restrictions placed on your use of the source code.

> This also goes horribly against the spirit of open source software,

I disagree, but the OSI doesn't say much about it specifically. The FSF, however, explicitly calls out the idea of paying a fee for the convenience of acquiring the software. This is straight in line with the FSF.

> if every small package on a Linux distro did this it'd cost tens of thousands at least to even launch the OS

No, because you only pay the Maintenance Fee for the software you directly depend upon. And if you don't use the Open Source project to make money, you don't pay anything. These catastrophic scenarios you are drawing up are not the reality.