Urgh I didn't know about the license change, that's a bummer. How come every project with 'Open' in it's name goes a similar route and becomes not open?

Now it's freeware with available source, but you can't build anything on top of it.

Easy, because they want the social credibility of being open source, but also later, when the project gets big, they want to dictate exactly who uses it and how.

If you care about how your software is used to this degree -- don't open source it! Every open source package I have ever made has come with a permissive license, because I want people to be able to use it however they wish. That's actual freedom. Unfortunately, a subset of "however they wish" can also be "used to bomb Gaza", but that is the cost of liberty and freedom. You have to take the good with the bad.

I don't know if "freedom to modify source code" and "committing a genocide" are morally comparable. This seems to undermine your point. I would have picked a different analogy

That doesn't undermine my point, that proves my point. Making something "FREE" (as in libre) comes with the consequence that people can use it for whatever they want. I assume you don't agree with bombing Gaza, hence it is a perfect example of "freedom" leading to poor outcomes.

This assumes the audience will agree that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff for software freedoms.

Freedom comes with uncomfortable ramifications. This is inescapable. Freedom includes doing things that a given individual isn't comfortable with. If you're not happy with this trade-off, don't use a license that allows "any" usage.

I understand the definition of "Freedom" as laid out by e.g. the FSF. I was explaining why your argumentation is not convincing unless the audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms. I'm saying you could make a more convincing argument by just not making that comparison in the first place. Unless your point was "perhaps we should reconsider whether Open Source is Good".

audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms

I talked about that to show one possible counterbalance between liberty and usages which are probably not explicitly wanted by the authors.

Another common example of freedom/restrictions is someone wanting to have their software permissively licensed while also not allowing cloud vendors to resell access to it. That's how you end up with licenses like Elastic's.

Or, if you want another example of "free", look at the distinction between the GPL and the BSD license as it applies to Sony and the Playstation. One of the reason Sony chose BSD for the basis of its gaming system is because the BSD license allows for commercial usage. In that sense it is MORE free than the GPL, which would not allow the type of usage Sony did with the Playstation without conferring more responsibility to Sony, for instance, releasing their source. Under BSD they have no obligation to do so, hence it is more free in that respect.

My whole point is a lot of people say "I want my software to be freely licensed" but they do not realize that they may be unintentionally opening the door to usages of the software that they do not want to see.

One should not pick a license that allows for unfettered usage of the software if you have certain ways you don't want to see it used.

As a final parting example, look at Prusa and their printers. They release the firmware and designs as open source. They they later get angry when companies clone their designs. This is permissible under the license. This is making Prusa want to lock down their future designs to avoid that usage.

Anyone considering licensing of their own software should think very carefully about what usages they support or object to and license the software accordingly. If you release your software as BSD licensed and some company comes along and makes a billion dollars with it, you aren't owned a cent under that agreement. If this makes you angry, don't pick BSD.