I just don't want anyone to copy the content and sell it. It's meant to be freely accessible to everyone.
Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say almost noone agrees with that definition there.
I think most people understand what you are describing as "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.
That’s called “source available”. Open source colloquially implies open license.
You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".
Anyone is free to publish only binaries+docs under this license, if they wish.
So the website is not very accurate.
I generally think of open source as where I can see the code and freely modify it, not necessarily freely commercialize it on my own.
Sure, I can't take your work, cut you off, then sell that work as if it were my own... but without explicit encouragement to do that (*), honour should inhibit that.
(* I'm aware some licenses give explicit encouragement to commercially exploit -- I just don't think that is the boundary for open source)
what you're describing is usually called "source-available".
>Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. The original, 4-clause BSD license has not been accepted as an open source license and, although the original is considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL due to the advertising clause.