"open source" has a specific definition[0], which this project does not meet. When people say "open source", that is the definition that they are referencing. It's the reason why there's been endless discussion about "open weights" models not being "open source".

"source available"[1] is a different thing, and you're right that this project is "source available".

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

You are right. I've been corrected. I misunderstood their licence to be on the distributable, not the source. I'll take my misunderstanding home now.

Source available is not open source. Don’t try to redefine what open source means. It’s so insulting to volunteers hard work.

Apologies to every OSS contributor for my misunderstanding then.

How can you say its open source and 3 sentences later that it has a proprietary license.

Their EULA forbids distributing the software, hence not open source.

You are describing source available. That is not the same as open source.

Thanks, I see my mistake! Can't correct my post but I'll take this into future thinking.