If you offer GPL/Commercial dual licensing then that basically is the case because large companies generally don't have lawyer-approval for GPL in their codebases (not always but as a rule of thumb they don't like the GPL).

I think the aforementioned model is the best one for the longevity of an open source project - If you want to use my work for free, then give something back to the project (your changes) but if you don't want to do that then please support it financially.

Exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks so much.

I hope this is beneficial for others in the same boat as me.

You could just write that term into a modified BSD license or some such. It wouldn't be Open Source at that point but it would get your point across. Enforcement would be difficult but you'd really only need to rely on the rule following behavior of a few big corps

Sounds like a good idea, theoretically, making those BigCorps pay an open-source tax :)

I wonder if that sort of discrimination is allowed though.

I also wonder if package bundlers like Ubuntu would consider to bundle the project with their distros, if it has such a license slapped on it.