This is exactly the sort of thing you say when you're trying to make data public but keep someone else from slapping a different header on your data and pretending they did all the work.

The ability to redistribute and change is as important, I think, as the ability to see the source.

Although I suppose you won't get as many downvotes as I did (the reason for which still eludes me)

https://opensource.org/history claims that the term did not really exist before those behind OSI/opensource.org started using it. While the originality of any composition of dictionary terms is debatable, I'm quite willing to accept that claim. I remember hot debates about the conceptual differences between FSF and OSI but none about prior use of the term.

You want the word shared source maybe? Or viewable source?

Many companies like Microsoft allow people to view the source code to their closed-source products under restrictive licenses, but nobody would claim that these products are "open source" as a result.

"Open" doesn't just mean "viewable."

> unDraw grants you an nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use the assets provided from unDraw for free

Edit: thinking of it again - kind of like software on github can be open source even if github isn't.

This is open source with a restriction on agregate use, thus making it officially not open source.

Well, any collection, even one of the images, if it's served up in a similar service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Origins

This basically means that if it's not free, it's not open source either.

Creating tons of confusion and not helping their cause at all as free proprietary software may benefit from the label when distributed to the masses as they heard "free" software is good.

Thinking about it, my previous point may be heavily biased by how “free software” sounds and how the wording is used in my native language.