Nowhere in the license does it claim that it’s an Open Source™ license.

The page summarises the license as “Basically… the MIT do-whatever-you-want license”. The MIT license is of course one of the most popular permissive open source licenses.

This is an incredibly misleading comparison. The subsequent clause is a complete contradiction, not a subtle clarification.

▲

mirzap 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People who use it claim it's Open Source

	▲	xigoi 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.