That's probably better, but Modified MIT is pretty descriptive, I read it as "mostly MIT, but with caveats for extreme cases" which is about right, if you already know what the MIT license entails

Whatever name they come up with for a new license will be less useful, because I'll have to figure out that this is what that is

imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the world. Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to everyone is a lost cause.

And honestly it wasn't a good hill to begin with: if what you are talking about is the license, call it "open license". The source code is out in the open, so it is "open source". This is why the purists have lost ground to practical usage.

You're presently illustrating exactly why Stallman et al were such sticklers about "Free Software."

"Open Source" is nebulous. It reasonably works here, for better or worse.