I can't really agree with that. For open source, yes, the OSD does make it clear that the definition does not permit licenses that prevent commercial resale. But "open access" for scientific works, or just technical documentation in general, does not seem - in vernacular use - to entail such a strict requirement.
Of course as an advocate of "free culture" in the most general sense, I might say I would prefer a book, paper, article, etc. to be published under something less restrictive. But I see nothing "duplicitious"[1] about this particular usage.
Consider that the corresponding Wikipedia entry on Open Access[2] contains this blurb, which supports the idea that both "gratis open access" and "libre open access" would be considered sub-types of the more general idea of "open access."
Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the BOAI definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.[38] Gratis open access (Free to read) refers to online access free of charge, and libre open access (open access) refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights
I'm pointing out that you've stated it's "open access" without making it open access, at least for a strict interpretation of open access.
on the same topic, I've seen people say that GPL isn't free for example.
While I understand that language is evolving and that only under a "strict definition" of open access does it mean removing barriers to copying and reuse [1], it's seems pretty duplicitous to say it's "open" while putting it under a non-commercial license.
[0] https://github.com/rougier/scientific-visualization-book/blo...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&oldid...