No. It used to be fairly common to sell software with source code, with explicit restriction that it may not be redistributed: source was only provided for in-house use. That is certainly not open source.
I remember those days, believe it or not.
Those old programs weren't open source just by the virtue of being accompanied by their source code that was open for view. Open Source in the meaning that become public in the 90's always included freedom to modify and/or distribute. If there were other meanings, they were local and are now superseded. The main difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Free Software requires you to use a free license on the derived work, and Open Source only gives you the right to do so. This difference in point of views is the reason for the creation of the term Open Source. That's also why Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro