Yes, that's right. This was definitely not intentional and we are very open to changing it to something more appropriate!
And it is open source.
Probably not OSI-open source or FSF-open source but it is open source, period.
Why should we restrict the meaning of Opel Source, a societal mouvement since decades, to a list of criteria that FSF or OSI decided?
Open source is not a trade mark by FSF or OSI.
OP did not say it is free/libre software, but just open source, which it is.
We don't need "source available", just open source is correct.
PS: can you define the open source body in your previous comment?
I can define Open Source easily, using the OSI definition.
There is not a trademark for Open Source because they failed to secure the trademark, but we have decades of use for the term meaning something specific.