You can be as tired of it as you want, but tiredness doesn't change the meaning of words.
What you probably want instead is "fair source": https://fair.io/
Like their names imply, open source is about source being open. Whereas fair source is about ensuring that code is used fairly.
I would argue that people contributing to open source shouldn't be putting themselves in a position to be "actively exploited". If that's something you're worried about, then open source was probably the wrong choice. You should have sold the code for a profit instead, or established some revenue-limited source sharing (so that only indie devs can use it for free, like e.g. Unreal Engine). Or use a fair source license. Or a proprietary "source available" license.
You speak as if there is a divinely written definition for the words "open source". There is not, there's a group of people who have said, "this is ok, this is not".
I'm of the opinion that those people have made a mistake that will work against them, and they should consider revising their definition.
But... there is a definitively written definition for those words. The phrase was invented to refer to a very specific thing. Changing the meaning of the word would accomplish nothing except force existing usages of the word to change.
Like, if fair source licenses began to be referred to as "open source", then "open source" will have lost its original meaning. So now when stating that something is "open source", you will have to clarify whether you mean "original open source" or "expanded open source" (or something like that). This distinction will be very important to potential users, since it may or may not restrict their intended use case.
It's no different from if we were to start referring to reptiles as mammals. Now when a biologist wants to refer to only organisms with mammary glands, they will need to use some other term, like "milk-making mammals". It does nothing but cause confusion.
Not sure how else to explain this concept... like, I'm really just talking about semantics and pragmatism here. I don't disagree with you on ideological grounds, if that's what you're assuming.
The world changes, and we update definitions. There's nothing magical about a group of people in the 90s defining a thing one way because they disliked the politics of another definition.
It's all just people making the best decisions they could. It's clear to me at least that there are existential threats presented by tech megacorps that aren't present awhile ago. Maybe it's time to rethink our definitions.
What you probably want instead is "fair source": https://fair.io/
Like their names imply, open source is about source being open. Whereas fair source is about ensuring that code is used fairly.
I would argue that people contributing to open source shouldn't be putting themselves in a position to be "actively exploited". If that's something you're worried about, then open source was probably the wrong choice. You should have sold the code for a profit instead, or established some revenue-limited source sharing (so that only indie devs can use it for free, like e.g. Unreal Engine). Or use a fair source license. Or a proprietary "source available" license.