That takes some level of hypocrisy - you are not making your Atlas as opensource, but you require others to do so.
This clearly indicates that you are using an opensource license as an extortion schema against competitors.
> IANAL but I don't see how it satisfies part 9 of the OSI Definition, or the DFSG. As DannyBee already mentioned, it's also incompatible with other existing open-source licenses. Why do they want to continue calling it "open source"? It sounds like they really just want to be a proprietary database.
They want to charge money and have control as a proprietary database. But they want to keep a label "open source" purely for marketing purposes.