Following a discussion in the comments field of this question, I'm beginning to think that we need to clarify topicality in the help page.
For some time now I've felt we'd developed a community consensus that, although lots of different people mean lots of different things by "Open Source", we use the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI definition as our guidelines. "Source available", commercially-restricted, CC-BY-ND, and other fringes-of-Open-Source licences, aren't "Open Source" within the meaning of the site.
Problem is, our main help page is not so clear on the subject, and can arguably be read as encouraging questions about fringe licences.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that questions about whether a given licence is free are off-topic. I am suggesting that questions about picking a licence that forbids commercial activity, or can't be used for military purposes, or requires all contributions to be sent to the author, or the like, are off-topic.
So my questions are:
Is it indeed our community consensus that the four freedoms and the OSI definition are our guideline definitions of FOSS?
If so, should we be clearer about this in our help page?