No they wouldn't?

>Allow small business and home users to easily enable an open network, so guests and passersby can get an Internet connection if they need one, while keeping a password-locked WPA2 network for themselves and their friends or coworkers.

Irrelevant.

>Let you share a bounded portion of your bandwidth on the open network, so guest users cannot slow down your Internet connection or use a large portion of your monthly quota.

Irrelevant too. You're not favoring any content over anybody's elses.

>Provide state-of-the-art network queuing, so most users can expect an improved Internet experience—especially with latency-sensitive applications—compared to what commonly available consumer grade routers are delivering today.

QoS is not a net neutrality violation, it favors certain aspects of a certain class of services. It's not an ISP slowing down Netflix in order to provide their own alternative, it's an ISP prioritizing VoIP over BitTorrent so that you don't get choppy video-calls. (Besides, you're not an ISP.)

>Offer a minimalist, secure, and elegant Web user interface to set up and configure the router. Advanced, non-minimalist administrative options are accessible by SSH.

>Advance the state of the art in consumer Wi-Fi router security and begin turning back the growing tide of attacks against them. Most or all existing router software is full of XSS and CSRF vulnerabilities, and we want to change that.

>Include a secure software auto-update mechanism. In addition to using HTTPS, firmware signatures and metadata are fetched via Tor to make targeted update attacks very difficult.

Not even remotely relevant to net neutrality.

Net neutrality for this kind of application is a flawed premise. If you're offering it for free that means you're not offering it commercially. And that means any of the precedent or case law or regulations regarding common carriers or any of that.

Now if you started selling subscriptions? That would be a different story.

Indeed yes it will be very likely that a provider would be selling service. A coffee shop might provide a code for extra access on the receipt, or a home user might ask for a small but non-zero payment of cryptocurrency after a certain amount of free use, or a openwifi provider might want to let users pay small amounts of currency to prioritize packets. In either of these likely use cases, wouldn't the net neutrality principle that all packets be treated equally be violated?

This begs the following questions which are seperate from the discussion of the definition of violation of net neutrality: Won't such monetary incentives help encourage people to setup open wireless routers? Might net neutrality rules hamper the widespread deployment of open wireless?

the definition Wikipedia provides

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

At its simplest, network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[20] According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally"."

Both Wikipedia and Tim Wu's definition seem to be pretty clear about treating all data equally. Prioritizing a certain type of traffic like VoIP over bittorrent would indeed be a violation of both wiki's and Wu's definition. And prioritizing the owner's packets over the guests would be a violation as well. Does this wikipedia article need a correction?