On the Asset Store, on both the compiled and non-complied versions of this asset, you use the term "open source." However, this project does not appear to be offered under an open source license. I believe it is important for you to be aware that you are misusing the term "open source," and as a result misleading your customers.
In software development, "open source" refers to a specific type of license based around making your full source code freely available to the public for review, contribution, and re-use. It's a form of open collaboration that works very differently from traditional closed commercial software development. The GNU Public License, MIT License, and Apache Public License are all examples of common open source licenses.
You can learn more about what it means to be truly "open source" from Wikipedia's definition here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model
Note that because most legitimately open source licensed software is intended to be legally downloaded for free off sites like Github, selling software that claims to be open source for hundreds of dollars looks suspicious. So it's not just misleading customers, but it's making your product look scammy to anyone who is familiar with real open source software.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with choosing a traditional closed licensing model instead of an open source licensing model. However, I do think it is very important that you be clear and honest about which one you are offering. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "open source" to refer to a closed, proprietary project that only provides source code to customers who have purchased access to it, and not shared freely and openly with the public. I would suggest you correct your asset store pages to eliminate the misuse of "open source," and instead use language to the effect of "includes source code." This is the language used by most similar projects on the Asset Store, and it would accurately convey your business model.