If software is distributed to you under terms that do not allow you to run, modify, and redistribute the software, then that distribution does not meet the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition nor the Free Software Foundation's four freedoms. The FLOSS ("free, libre, and open source software") community refers to software that has public source code but fails to meet these definitions as "source available" software.
Note that it is entirely possible for a single vendor distribute the same piece of software under FLOSS terms and non-FLOSSss terms simultaneously. (One popular example of this is vendors who offer their software library under a GPL copyleft license and under a proprietary license that allows non-copyleft derivatives.)
A vendor may charge any amount of money to transfer a copy of free/open source software to a recipient, but they cannot restrict the recipient from distributing the software further. (If they did, the terms of that transfer would not be a FLOSS license grant.)
It's also possible for a freely-licensed program to demand payment to perform some functionality, but if the program is under a FLOSS license, then you can simply modify it so that it doesn't demand payment anymore.
When it comes to other people's contributions, what matters is how the contributors licensed their contributions to the person performing distribution. If the contributors allowed their copyrighted work to be used in this way, there's no problem. If they did not allow it, then the distributor may be infringing on the contributors' copyrights by making unauthorized copies.