He describes his vision for "post open source" license, which he is currently developing. His goals seem to be to to empower software developers to take back power from megacorps which have in his view subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme.
I'm not sure if that's a fair statement because the notion of 'resource extraction scheme' is entirely subjective.
If people are using the software in accordance with the license that you afford it, then that's it, there's nothing more you can ask.
If it turns out that 80% of the value is going to be captured by 'Big Corps', well, then that's what it is and it's entirely up to the Open Source developer to contemplate why they would want to do this or not. To each their own.
I suggest however, that there should be a better 3rd option that frankly doesn't exist, which is to allow devs to get paid commensurate with the popularity of their software, which would technically be commercial, but wherein the terms would actually be fairly open by any reasonable measure.
I suggest this dichotomy between 'Stallman/GPL vs. Evil Corps' is completely false and that it's mostly grey in between. It's just that there's a little bit of a cliff between the more open license and harder commercial terms which make things quite difficult for everyone aka imagine your corporate lawyer asked to review every one of the weird commercial terms of the 300 or so Node.js packages you're using ...
With the difference that demo versions are no longer time limited, and even with the demo version there is code available instead of being an option on the commercial product.
Companies just call it open source instead, regardless of what is stated at OSI website as definition.