There is a middle way: license your software so that big players with more than (say) $1M revenue will have to pay for the development of the software, while the small guy can use the free version.

> because people can share it around freely without your consent.

The nice thing about this approach is that big players like FAANG can't really get around it. But it doesn't matter since your software is probably already a bargain for them (all these big companies are essentially built on open source).

Another approach is a source-available license.

The one I'm interested in would be one, where viewing, modifying, recompiling the source is allowed, but redistribution is allowed only to those who had bought the license from all owners of the source and it's modifications. It would produce a nice "waterfall" effect.

It wouldn't be open-source nor free software, but most people don't really need limitless redistribution, and the source would be proof that said software isn't malicious.