This moving the goal posts of open-source to exclude anyone making money off of it is annoying. I can get the project for FREE and I can see the source code and make changes to it. How is it not open source? Because I can't also turn around and sell it?
It is not open source simply because it does not conform to the OSI definition of open source [1], which is what everyone understands open source to be. This license particularly places restrictions on how the software and derivative works can be used in hosted services ([2], links from their site.) And to your latter point, both free/open licenses allow commercial use; in fact, restricting commercial use would make the license non-free.
What is annoying is companies redefining these terms for PR, especially when they end up confusing the newer generations among the crowd.
...which makes is a non-starter for many academic settings:
```
Limitations
You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed
service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of
the features or functionality of the software.
There is no moving goal post. The license isn't an open source license, which by definition means the code is not open source. When you have access to source code of a program, but don't necessarily have the legal rights to distribute original and/or modified programs, it's called "source available".
These guys' PR is trying too hard.