Hacker News Reader

This isn't about software so I'm not sure "open source" is even the right terminology, but if it is then no it's not open source by any common definition. For example the open source initiative defines open source in a way that requires allowing commercial use: https://opensource.org/faq#commercial

> Isn't that it?

No, because of the "for personal use" restriction. Whether it is on Github has nothing to do with it.

Open source simply means the source is publicly available. There can be, and often are, restrictions on how the source can be used.

I think you've got visible source in mind.

"Source available" is the preferred term of a particular commercial GrapheneOS.org "competitor".

It doesn't simply mean that. It means some fairly specific things [0], one of which is that there can be no "discrimination against fields of endeavor", which restriction on commercial use is.

[0] - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

FWIW, it is similar to some freeware program offer.

And calling the subject «open source» is similar blasphemy as publishing project without source to sourceforge.