If you can read the source code, it is source-available. This model is source-available but not open source because CC-BY-NC 4.0 restricts the way the software can be used (noncommercial use only). This is contrary to the Open Source Definition's "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Luckily to prevent everybody interpreting sounds and glyphs as they wish, we -as a civilization- agreed to adhere to certain standards of how things would be interpreted. The same way we agreed that "allow" means can but not must, we agreed what open source means. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are in the right.
> Luckily to prevent everybody interpreting sounds and glyphs as they wish, we -as a civilization- agreed to adhere to certain standards of how things would be interpreted.
Exactly. I'm for using definitions of words as they are commonly understood. The other definition relies on arbitrary conditions totally unrelated to the English meanings of the words being used.
> Exactly. I'm for using definitions of words as they are commonly understood.
No you are not. Open source in the context of computing has a definition that is commonly understood. Why then are you using definition of that word that is not commonly understood?
Just open to viewing? Would you consider stolen and GitHub-posted code as open source?
Licenses adhering to the OSD generally ensure open viewing, open use, open modification and open distribution. Stripping that back to just viewing removes a large part of openness that "open source" has been built upon.
