Yes, I don't know how one can be able to cite sources yet be so ill-informed. This article probably doesn't mean anything to anyone. Open source means you get the source, that's it. OSI is a good reference, but it's not the boss of definitions.
The first sentence says:
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
In particular, all commercial usage must be allowed, otherwise, it is not open source.
Indeed, "open source" taken at face value could be interpreted as "source available", but given the historical context, that's not what the term intends to represent.
It's because of this dissonance that I think it's important to make differences clear. Perhaps "free software" has always been a better name, but I think the community needs to come to an agreement on this.
Most people see free and think without cost.
So is shareware free software?