If people want to create and promote their own utopian models that's their business. Personally I'd want nothing to do with that, and it definitely should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license.
On another note, a transaction is a meeting of the minds. When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. People who think they are owed something are like beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired.
Even when it's the ten trillion dollar combined market cap of FAANG (or whatever we call them now)?
Because that's not open source. That's free labor suicide.
And they’re not really the worst one could think of, as FAANG thenselves contribute a lot to open source software.
The salaries of the people who work on those projects are paid by the revenue streams generated by the companies.
What the FSF calls "free software" and what OSI calls "open source" are essentially mechanisms for implementing such approaches in a capitalist context, in which the abstraction of "intellectual property" is enshrined in law.