It is not meant for non credentialed individuals?
The watering down of the legal definitions of Open Source and Creative Commons is a death of a thousand cuts. Every single misrepresentation and false claim needs to be called out and shut down. It's hard to stress how important these concepts are to the current state of the world. Many people say "stop being pedantic" or "the source can be read, therefore it's open source". The reason you currently have a secure server operating system that can use state of the art encryption on affordable commodity hardware is that "Open Source" has a legal definition. Please, let's not break it.
There is no open source license (that I know of) which requires public availability. If there is a requirement of providing sources, it's always a requirement of providing sources with a derived work. If you are not releasing derived works to anyone you don't need to release any source to anyone either. So called permissive licenses don't even have any requirement on providing sources whatsoever.
Nevertheless, not every license is open source, open source does have a definition, and it's not about whether the owner is following their own license.
> Please note the (CC BY-NC 4.0) license terms, as outlined in the License section.
In spite of the title and the article says "open souce" many times, it's free as in "source abailable".