I'm on your side in principle but the distinction is important in this case.
No, I'm not. Please read the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
In practical terms there's very little difference between free software and open source. It's mostly a "philosophical" difference - free software advocates put an emphasis on "freedom", while open source advocates see it more as a business model. But the requirements for the licensing are identical.
Open source is by definition of the phrase, as well as in practical cases, a program whos source is available. Nothing more.
There are many prominent open source programs that also exist as a licensed product.
That's why I have always believed free software (FOSS) to be the other definition where the software cannot be licensed or sold for a profit.
But I don't like it when people lie to me. The title is "Trying a new open source model" - the content is "Trying not to be open source any more". If you don't want to do open source then you can of course do that. But if you don't want to do open source any more and still say you're doing open source then you're lying.
(And before anyone answers: No, there's no "other open source" or "a different kind of open source". Open Source is a clearly defined term and such restricted licenses aren't.)