No, my wording was intentional. I was describing the journalist’s direction of inference, not asserting the definition in reverse. They saw the term “open source” and mentally reduced it to “the source code is viewable”, which is why I phrased it that way.

Open source does literally mean that.

It means that PLUS many more conditions. If you remove those additional conditions it’s not open source anymore but “source available”.

To be precise: open source implies source-available, but source-available does not imply open source.