While I agree that the excepted definition of open source implies a lot more than simple access to the source (such as certain usage rights and ethical disclosures, according to wikipedia), I maintain that this is incorrect. The term "open source" should not imply anything beyond having viewing rights to the source. Nowhere does that definition imply at face value anything else. If you want open source to mean a collection of rights based on the ability to view code, then a new definition is needed. Depending on the situation, access to a given piece of source may or may not help a developer, regardless of their right to modify and redistribute that modification.
