[josephernest]

I disagree.

Ok, a non-commercial Creative Common license is not "OSI-open source" or "FSF-open source", but it is technically "open source". The source is open.

The open source societal movement is much broader than the narrow definition given by OSI or FSF.

OP, your tool is perfectly fine with a non-commercial creative common license. The fact that CC licenses are not specific for software does not imply it is a bad choice for software.

Here I find it is a very appropriate license for OP's needs : he wants to open the source code, but prevent that someone else takes it and makes money with it under another name. This is totally fine.

[satvikpendem]

Then say source available, not open source, because the latter connotes the freedoms as mentioned in the OSI definition, for most people who use that phrase.

[josephernest]

Open source is not trademarked by FSF or OSI. I think it is ok to call it open source since the source is open.

[satvikpendem]

Let's not redefine words based on what you personally think is correct when people en masse have been using them to mean a certain specific concept. It does not have to be trademarked, it can have a de facto meaning that everyone generally understands to be what it means.

[drdaeman]

That's because "open source" is a bad name, since it only focuses on source code availability rather than three other essential freedoms. "Free/libre software" always made more sense, but "open source" got significantly more popular.