Why? What is meaningful about sharing code with the threat of a lawsuit if someone copies it? Is sounds like you want the term to be erroded?

To explain where I'm coming from a bit more, my thinking is something like:

"open source" where crucial parts of making a system work, or where the project scoops up eager contributors and them schisms the community once it's finished using their work, tends to have a negative effect.

If those projects were more explicitly either "closed source"/"source accessible" etc, then the open source community could focus their efforts on projects that actually embraced genuine openness and hackability.

Of course - I'd rather there was more actual open source. But what I really want is for "open source" to be some marker saying "this is a project that's open and built by/for the community".

User consent. Uninformed consent is not consent.

You cannot meaningfully consent to running software on your devices, or running your life on software, when that software's source is unavailable.