Open source has a clear definition. The kind of license you want is not compatible with that. It would be a valid software license, but not open source.
The community of free and open source software developers.
Really, with the kind of license proliferation that was going on due to every Tom and Harry that wanted to publish their own license, it was difficult to understand which license was really safe to use and which wasn't. FSF and OSI stepped in to bring some sanity to this situation by categorizing all the free and open source licenses by their permissiveness and restrictions. The majority of the open source development community adopted these licenses.
Any license that restricts making money would neither be considered a free license by FSF nor an open source license by OSI. The license could discourage making money without contributing back to the community and the GPL family of licenses do achieve that to some extent but they cannot outright restrict making money.
The OSD has its roots in Debian Free Software Guidelines which for a long time has been the community standard for what guarantees free software must provide. FSF's four freedoms of free software are also similar. OSD adopted Debian's guidelines to create the open source definition.
If a license does not allow us to run a software how we wish we lose freedom 0 to run the software how we wish. We lose the right to use the software for any field of endeavor. You might want to consider it "open source" because you can still see the source but widely accepted terms like "open source" do not get redefined so easily based on how some people feel about the term. The term's meaning still remains intact due to the meaning it holds for the vast majority of open source software developers.
