That's an incomplete, if not useless, definition. I sell a source code license to my software. It does not allow redistribution. Any member of the public can p

That's an incomplete, if not useless, definition. I sell a source code license to my software. It does not allow redistribution. Any member of the public can pay me for a copy under that license. That fits your definition but no one meaningfully calls my software Open Source. Using that term your way in general conversation is only going to confuse things. We already have terms like "source available" which fit your needs and which are far less ambiguous or contentious. The arguments over what "open source" means, in a software license context, was generally resolved many years ago.