I get your frustration with software development jargon but this seems like an odd choice to attack.
And to two of your points, here's a version that is "serverless", and can run completely from the file system.
https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc
But is it truly "serverless"? I mean the file system is serving the file up to the browser!
C'mon.
Oh, and in case you were going to point out that there's a server involved in the link I posted because, "the WebRTC offer/answer exchange is performed manually by the users, for example via IM", (emphasis mine) - the information could just as easily be written on a piece of paper and exchanged via carrier pigeon. The pigeon may still technically be a server, in an architectural sense I suppose, but hopefully at that point you'd agree we're taking the argument past the point of any sensibility.
If that's the gripe though, I think it'd be barking up the wrong tree to apply to these types of WebRTC patterns and OP's project.
It'd be cool if people stop using bullshit buzzword in order to promote a project. There is a server period. It doesn't matter if "it does only a small thing". that bullshit needs to stop and I will call anybody engaged into bullshiting others out as long as they keep doing that.
The client talks directly to the other client but in order to connect 2 clients at first place you need a server to connect peers.
That's what you call serverless ? then that's a lie, period.
It's obviously you who don't have a clue what you are talking about.
"serverless" needs to die, no application that relies on the web is serverless, there is always a server.