The OSI and FSF do not have any restrictions based on commercial usage so these restrictions would make the software nonfree. The readme and license both say open source, but the license text defines what is referred to as source available with additional permissions for personal use.
The last piece about releasing the software under an FSF approved license that is public domain is oddly written as very few FSF approved licenses are equivalent to public domain. Public domain licenses on the list are Unlicense and CC0.
I would recommend instead to use one of the FSF approved licenses to make this software free, libre, and open source. I would recommend a copyleft license such as GPL-3.0-or-later or AGPL-3.0-or-later.
Edit: Added public domain licenses, sources about noncommercial, and links to source available wikipedia.
The OSI and FSF do not have any restrictions based on commercial usage so these restrictions would make the software nonfree. The readme and license both say open source, but the license text defines what is referred to as source available with additional permissions for personal use.
The last piece about releasing the software under an FSF approved license that is public domain is oddly written as very few FSF approved licenses are equivalent to public domain. Public domain licenses on the list are Unlicense and CC0.
I would recommend instead to use one of the FSF approved licenses to make this software free, libre, and open source. I would recommend a copyleft license such as GPL-3.0-or-later or AGPL-3.0-or-later.
Edit: Added public domain licenses, sources about noncommercial, and links to source available wikipedia.