You can certainly change the meaning of well understood words in English by capitalizing them: polish != Polish, windows != Windows, etc. Furthermore, adding a hyphen to convert a noun phrase to an adjective seems to me to be a common and non-controversial practice in English.
(Yes, I believe I understand your position, but I think you're going to have to rephrase your objection.)
Not right. The problem with this definition is that it doesn't confer any extra rights. It doesn't mean very much if you can read the source code if you're not allowed to use it, study it, modify it or release modified copies. Microsoft does this, actually. They release the source code of the C runtime library, but it's All Rights Reserved, so you can't really do anything with it except use it for debugging. You have no extra rights to it than if they didn't release it and you reverse-engineered it from the CRT binaries instead. Even your right to study it is in question. You can't contribute to the Wine CRT if you've seen the official CRT source.[1]
So, for a program to be "open source," under the commonly understood definition, it must confer some rights. Most organizations that deal in free and open source software, like the OSI, FSF, and Debian, have agreed that this includes the right to use the program for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
Non-commercial use clauses for software are really troublesome, too. For example, if a small family-owned business uses the same computer for personal and business work, are they allowed to use LuLu at all? If another Objective C developer is reading LuLu's source code and they come across a utility or widget or something that they want to use in their own software, can they use it without the troublesome non-commercial use restriction coming with it? (Probably not.)
No, I'd say that your "open source" is either "shared source" or "source available" - depending on exact terms - using terms that we've been using for a couple of decades now.
