Hacker News Reader

That part is fair but they should have said something like "shared source", or "source available".

"Open source" means something specific to a lot of people. You may have issues with how OSI operates (I do too!) but let's not muddy things further.

It's a nice sentiment, but irrelevant. The code is not open source, they should not say that it is. Open source code can be used commercially.

You misunderstood me. I am grateful they are sharing the source code for review. My problem is with the wording. Open source means something different by definition. If they leave this project in the dust and someone else continues to maintain it, because he depends on it, this would be illegal and they could sue if they want years later. With open source this can not happen to you. It is a huge difference.