I'm curios, the difinition of open source implies (demands) more than making the source code available?
Just in case I'm not talking in a broad sense, I'm asking whether just being able to see the code is enough to consider a piece of software open source.
the difinition of open source implies (demands) more than making the source code available?
Yes.
Essentially, you have to provide the source, and also allow people to make & distribute derived works based on it. This CC-NC-BY licence does not allow you to distribute derived works for commercial purposes. Lots of companies use open source software in commercial purposes.
It depends who you ask. The OSI have a definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). It isn't the only definition, but it's probably the only definition self-important enough to have its own webpage. Some people get angry if you don't agree with that definition, but there's no real reason to consider it privileged above the lay definition ("the source is available").
Just in case I'm not talking in a broad sense, I'm asking whether just being able to see the code is enough to consider a piece of software open source.
Thabks