Well, then... call that "not-legally-usable-for-some open source" :).
Or "with restrictions". Though seems the only restriction about the sources themselves is "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.". That shouldn't be an obstacle? And other restrictions are about software use, not sources. Still: you can use the thing, and if you dislike something in it or miss something, you have ability to modify/implement that. Yet you can get inspirations in it, and even just copy-paste from it. So, sources are open? Yet take this particular example: you can obtain the sources just now even absolutely "legally", if you're so concerned; adapt to your needs; and build a web-site with it for yourself, and for somebody (even for money). So, even, "legally open" source for this case? Even if someone's desired use is not allowed, it's still that use "not legal", not sources "not open". You won't claim a shop to be closed, just if it doesn't hand out goods for free. :) And the definition at that site rejects this case, on ground that some uses of this software are not allowed. But 1) this has nothing to do with sources being open, 2) most typical uses are allowed, 3) even those, who cannot use it as they wished, still are allowed to get sources, modify, compile, all that. So, does not that definition define something very different, than being "open source"? Being much more restricted/specific as a definition?
