What you described is free software, not open source.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
There are things that are open source, but not free, like the Unreal Engine.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
There are things that are open source, but not free, like the Unreal Engine.
https://www.unrealengine.com/eula
the Unreal Engine is not Open Source. Not least because you can't share the source code without restriction.
As I understand it, the difference between free and Open Source is a difference in philosophy rather than a difference in licensing. For Free Software people the importance lies in freedom, but for Open Source people the importance is that it's a better way to develop software.
For example, a Free Software person would always use free software even if was inferior to a proprietary alternative, because they wouldn't want to give up their freedoms. An Open Source person would use whichever is superior, regardless of licensing. I'm in both camps but I tend to use the term Open Source because Free is confusing because it means both 'no charge' and 'liberty'.
The FSF and the OSI both have a list of licences they endorse. I think some licences are endorsed by the OSI, but not by the FSF. Those are candidate for "Open Source, yet not Free".
Besides this small detail, I agree.
Would you consider to use term "libre software", because "open source" is confusing because it means both "one can read the code" and "one can do certain things with the code"?