Yea it can be read, but it’s generally considered open source when it is both readable and modifiable, and this is not. In a commercial setting this would need a license approved by OSI as well.

Code that can be read but not used for much isn’t in the spirit of open source. It reminds me of a rich kid who gets yet another new toy and wants everyone to see what they have for attention but won’t let them touch it. We should call this something else entirely, perhaps readable source.

Not sure what your definition of proper is, but the license is restrictive and wouldn’t be described as free nor open.