As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
That’s not open source, it’s source-available
Sounds more like open source but not free software?
As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
It annoys me to no end, but it is what it is…