[SomeoneOnTheWeb]

Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is open to read, for me it's open source. The website you linked is an opinionated view on what open source is.

[__jonas]

> If the source is open to read, for me it's open source

Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say almost noone agrees with that definition there.

I think most people understand what you are describing as "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.

[shevis]

> If the source is open to read, for me it's open source.

That’s called “source available”. Open source colloquially implies open license.

[captainepoch]

It's not. Open Source has its own definition.

You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".

[rvense]

I mean, there's not a lot we can do to stop you using the phrase in this way. But you should know that you will cause confusion. The phrase "open source" is, to an awful lot of people, a technical term with a specific meaning and has been so for decades now.

[palata]

I think you misunderstand the debates happening around open source. They exist, but not for what you mean.