Unless you insist that open source means "there can be absolutely no limits whatsoever on the use of the source code" (which is not an unreasonable position), then they still fit into many people's sense of open source - they can do anything they would want to do with it.

The people I know who have added clauses like this do not believe they are breaking the spirit of open source; I'm not here to insist that they are right or wrong.

I'm here to insist they are wrong, because people's notion of a term is not actually what that term might mean. Call me an etymological prescriptivist but OSS has a defined meaning that no amount of vibes-based hand wringing will change, it pertains to the OSI definition in my view.

And let's not forget, licenses are legal contracts, so it behooves people even more to get them correct lest they be sued.

The terms "OSS" and "open source" do not appear in the licenses associated with them.

Why would they be, literally? That doesn't mean anything about whether they are in the category of open source or not.