Maybe but I’m assuming you are far to young to have worked on and pre x86 arch. So assuming is only making you the arse.
I worked on many software products calling them self open source pre stallmans popularity.
It literally was the only way software commercial could have a large marketing base in the early days. Pre home PC etc.
Pre internet links are hard. I grew up using these versions of open source.
IBM SCO and sun formed Open source licences that were very literally you got to see and change the source.
In the 60 as CPU tech was a minefield of different ideas and architecture. It was the only way companies your keep up with mainframe PCs.
You will need to go to a library with microfiche and hubd down the 1960s open source magazine if you want more then actual old farts telling you the truth,
Unfortunately you fail to understand the history. Stall man FSF etc is a relatively new organisation started in the 80s.
Open source was a term long before that. And it was created by early Unix commercial dostros in the 60s. There were magazines etc dedicated to it as a mess with to allow commercial software to spread to multiple platforms. Long before stallmans free as in beer attitude.
So no the other licences have a place in history and are open source even if you and I may not support their ideals.
This is why words like libre and free software were formed to include our expanded ideals.
Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation.
While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false.
Sure when you find any source indication open source did not exist as a term,
Untill then stop being an arsehole and consider the fact old gits remember shit.