Of course people can license their stuff in whatever weird way they want and I don't have to like it.
But I don't like it when people lie to me. The title is "Trying a new open source model" - the content is "Trying not to be open source any more". If you don't want to do open source then you can of course do that. But if you don't want to do open source any more and still say you're doing open source then you're lying.
(And before anyone answers: No, there's no "other open source" or "a different kind of open source". Open Source is a clearly defined term and such restricted licenses aren't.)
In practical terms there's very little difference between free software and open source. It's mostly a "philosophical" difference - free software advocates put an emphasis on "freedom", while open source advocates see it more as a business model. But the requirements for the licensing are identical.
This doesn't meet neither the free software nor Open Source license requirements. It might be open source in some colloquial sense, but that's not how the term is usually understood in the trade.
But I don't like it when people lie to me. The title is "Trying a new open source model" - the content is "Trying not to be open source any more". If you don't want to do open source then you can of course do that. But if you don't want to do open source any more and still say you're doing open source then you're lying.
(And before anyone answers: No, there's no "other open source" or "a different kind of open source". Open Source is a clearly defined term and such restricted licenses aren't.)