No they're right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.

Edit: I'll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).

• Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I'm aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.

And in the Open-Source definition, it's literally in rule 1:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.