If it’s licensed for “non-commercial use”, it is no longer open source. But you are correct that the dual source licensing scheme can work, look at NGINX(BSD license) and NGINX Plus.
Promotion of (corporate version of) open source is designed to cut costs of R&D - so people use their own money and resources to create projects and then big corporation comes in and appropriates the successful ones without paying anything. Sometimes they contribute some code back, job done.
Then you have a situation where big corporation makes millions or even billions using the software and original developers are struggling to make ends meet.
This is wrong!
Every open source project should be dual licensed, so the authors can be properly compensated!
The OSD was created precisely to prevent this kind of underhanded twisting of words.
Want to use a non-open license, go for it! But find your own phrase to describe it. “Open source” is taken.
Beyond security and interoperability I don’t see the point in projects that anyone can contribute to but only one person can profit from. Why would I contribute? I always felt this way about dual-license GPL code. It has a first-mover effect that sucks all the air out of the room for someone to create a project with more liberal licensing. How am I to set up a rival project if I don’t also want to be your business rival?
That being said, if you contribute to an open source dual licensed project, you should be getting a share of the revenue coming from corporations paying for the license.
Your idea of free software is similar to that in the music industry, where corporations want to pay for the content in "exposure".
Another thing - that comes back to my first point - is that if we allow open source contributors to not be compensated, when their projects are being used commercially, we are creating inequality, where only privileged people who can afford to commit their time for free contribute to these projects, get recognition and then subsequently may be looking at getting better jobs than those who cannot afford to contribute, because they come from poor background and need to be in paid work in order to live. In my country, when unpaid internships were legal, they were usually taken by white kids from privileged middle class families, who could pay for their food and accommodation. They were getting experience and better start in life than their poor peers.
Your idea of open source enforces inequality and is wrong!
This is much earlier than sponsorship and goes to Stallman’s Freedom 0.
You’re looking for “source-available.”
Yes, permissive open source licenses tend to benefit large industry players.
However, you have it backwards.
We promoted these licenses to these industry players under the "Open Source" label so that we could use and contribute to free software at our day jobs, rather than being locked into a proprietary landscape.
It seems you are solving a different problem.
Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source.
Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me.
It's great that the phrase "open source" has been so intuitively understood but to claim it has an obvious literal meaning is just nonsense.
An open door implies you can see what's behind the door, as opposed to a closed door. An open book implies you can see what's inside a book, as opposed to a closed book. Likewise, open source implies that you can see inside the source code, as opposed to closed source.
So I think the claim that it has no obvious literal meaning is a bit hyperbolic, but I get where your thinking, since most developers automatically associate "open source" with "free code".
Perhaps Glass Source would be a more accurate phrase for code you can see but not touch.
No that is how the English language works. Car gas and gas are two different things.
Source available is akin to putting a paper behind a piece of glass, how is that open? You can't touch it, can't modify it.
By that definition GPL and attribution required aren’t open source.
More to the point with a no commercial clause, it isn't freely available there are restrictions on what you can do with it.
See the provided link. I am used to the source open / source available phrasing, but, I did not know the history behind it.