Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source.
Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me.
It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.
An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source.
So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".
Perhaps Glass Source would be a more accurate phrase for code you can see but not touch.
No that is how the English language works. Car gas and gas are two different things.
Source available is akin to putting a paper behind a piece of glass, how is that open? You can't touch it, can't modify it.
By that definition GPL and attribution required aren’t open source.
More to the point with a no commercial clause, it isn't freely available there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
See the provided link. I am used to the source open / source available phrasing, but, I did not know the history behind it.