[Dalewyn]

Certainly. Despite what some people might tell you, the only real requirement behind something being Open Source is that its Source code be Open for viewing. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are plenty of "free for personal use; restrictions apply for commercial use" type products and licenses out there. To use a specific software example, almost all mods for Kerbal Space Program are open source with a "free for personal use, commercial use prohibited; redistribution prohibited" license.

Also note how there are plenty of free-as-in-beer, closed source software out there. Commercial, open source software is simply a mirror opposite of them.

Free-as-in-beer vs. Commercial, and Open vs. Closed source, are separate concepts that can co-exist in any combination.

[pabs3]

This is incorrect, by no means does the Open Source Definition require that source code be open for viewing by the public, only by recipients of the software.

https://opensource.org/osd

[Dalewyn]

I never specified public viewing, nor does any code require the blessings of "Open Source Initiative" or their "Open Source Definition" to be open source code.

Open source code is simply source code that is open. Nothing more and nothing less.

[pabs3]

The word "open" in your custom definition of "open source" is quite vague, open to whom and open in what ways?

The OSI says those should be "whoever receives a copy of the binaries" and "open to read/run/modify/distribute for original/modified versions".

The OSI definition is much more useful to me as a software user and programmer than any other definition I have seen.