Open source does not have to be free.

For example, you buy the software and with it you also get the source code.

The most common definition of "open source" is pretty much indistinguishable from free software. The only real difference is the overall goal of the two movements. The term open source comes from the OSI: https://opensource.org/ The definition of "open source" is here: https://opensource.org/osd Before the OSI nobody used the term "open source". It was coined by Eric Raymond (ESR). I can't think of any way it would be correct to use the term in a different context.

>Open source does not have to be free.

If we're using the common definition that everyone in the industry uses, then it actually does.

In fact, Open source was coined in 1998 because we needed a term with a precise and well defined meaning.

I don't know anyone who uses the term open source in the way you describe.

The source is available (open), but there are restrictions in what you can use the source and software for - in this case, no commercial development is explicitly stated. Is this way while it is open and gratis (for some uses), it is not libre.

Additionally, creative commons do not recommend their license for source code and software works because software has specific needs that cc was not developed with in mind.

So, it's source-available, not Open Source.

Open source has a well-defined industry-standard definition:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source