I just don't want anyone to copy the content and sell it. It's meant to be freely accessible to everyone.
Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say almost noone agrees with that definition there.
I think most people understand what you are describing as "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.
That’s called “source available”. Open source colloquially implies open license.
You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".
I generally think of open source as where I can see the code and freely modify it, not necessarily freely commercialize it on my own.
what you're describing is usually called "source-available".
>Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. The original, 4-clause BSD license has not been accepted as an open source license and, although the original is considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL due to the advertising clause.
Sure, I can't take your work, cut you off, then sell that work as if it were my own... but without explicit encouragement to do that (*), honour should inhibit that.
(* I'm aware some licenses give explicit encouragement to commercially exploit -- I just don't think that is the boundary for open source)
Anyone is free to publish only binaries+docs under this license, if they wish.
So the website is not very accurate.