I actually thought of that when I wrote my comment, but I wasn't sure if open source only meant the open source definition by the open source initiative. Apparently there's no "access to the source code" meaning if we are to believe Wikipedia.
Therefore there's three possible cateogories: closed source, open source and 'access to the source code but no free license'.
> open source only meant the open source definition by the open source initiative
Some people will argue about that point and say it ain't so, but you've seen what I think about that :-)
> 'access to the source code but no free license'.
I've never seen a good term for that but some big names do it - Atlassian used to do it with JIRA and Confluence (don't know if they still do). It's not a bad thing to do - it's just not Open Source.
Therefore there's three possible cateogories: closed source, open source and 'access to the source code but no free license'.