No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source.

Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others.

There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.

*according to the industry standard definition of Open Source

This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No.

"I don't know anything about open source licenses hence I must spread my ignorance everywhere"