If you modify, distribute, sell, or otherwise use Covered Items for a profit, or sell knowledge/services for Covered Items, you agree to disclose the following to the Maker(s):
This is very tricky. It defenitely wouldn't be considered free software, but when it comes to open source is tricky. The point is, it's only open source if having to disclose such information does not discriminate against any field of endeavor.
I very much suggest you not to call it "open source" until this has been clarified trough OSI approval.
Additionally:
With open source licenses, there are no financial benefits for the Makers and maintainers.
That is not necessarely the case.
On the contrary, open source projects are often used to make profit by businesses who don’t reciprocate value at all.
True.
PEARL fixes this issue
It should be explained how this was ever an issue to begin with.
I am not sure about that.
See, the problem is:
This is very tricky. It defenitely wouldn't be considered free software, but when it comes to open source is tricky. The point is, it's only open source if having to disclose such information does not discriminate against any field of endeavor.
I very much suggest you not to call it "open source" until this has been clarified trough OSI approval.
Additionally:
That is not necessarely the case.
True.
It should be explained how this was ever an issue to begin with.