This is exactly the kind of thing, I’m talking about. Open source has mostly been captured by large corporations because purists refuse to recognize the gradient between proprietary and completely free.

If I license my software as MIT but with an exception that you can’t use it for commercial purposes if you make more than $100 million a year in revenue, that’s a lot closer to open source than proprietary.

We should be normalizing licenses that place restrictions on large corporations.

I think the world would be a much better place if we just changed the definition of open source to include such licenses. We don’t even really need to change the definition because normal everyday use of the term would already include them.

Open source is open source. There exists no gradient there.

If your software isn't open source, don't claim it is. You are free to try to normalize your licensing preferences. Even better if you have a nice name for them that don't try to mislead people into thinking they are something they clearly aren't.

> I think the world would be a much better place if we just changed the definition of open source to include such licenses.

You are free to think that. I'm quite certain it's not correct, but nothing stops you. Anyway, you can make a positive change on the world you actually live on by being honest and clear about what your license does, and communicating why you think it's a good thing.

Again, it's a huge plus if you get some nice name that can actually mean the thing your license is.

> normal everyday use of the term would already include them

Normal and everyday use of "open source" does absolutely not include the licenses you are talking about.