Yes, and a license that codifies that intent isn't "open source". Open Source Software (as defined by the Open Source Initiative, the ones who came up with the term), was actually a re-branding of the term "Free Software". Open source software, as with free software, protects your freedoms as the owner of that software to modify, distribute, and study the code, with no conditions on any of those freedoms. What the author is doing is certainly commendable, and it would benefit us all if they took the next step and made their software fully open source.
The GPL and MIT licenses both protect your freedoms to modify and distribute the software for any purpose. The "raging debate" is about whether or not derivative software should also be required to protect your freedom.
