While I get and support the intent, I don't like this usage of the name of the MIT license. I personally like the license because it tells me at a glance that I can use it for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, as long as the copyright and license is included and that there is no warranty. That's it, no complications, no other demands, no "if it makes X money or not", just I include the copyright and license terms and that's it, I can use the software whichever way I like.

Your license is not that. You have extra conditions that add complexity. I can no longer go "oh like MIT" and immediately use it for any purpose, because you require extras especially if I were to make money. That seems completely against the spirit of the simplicity of the MIT license which says you can do whatever you like, commercial or otherwise, as long as the copyright and license are included.

I think you should make your own license that includes the text of the MIT license, except removing the irrelevant parts (ie the commercial aspects include a caveat about requiring payment). You can still have a separate line of text explaining that the license is like the MIT license but with XYZ changes (basically the text you have now). But the license is not the MIT license and you should therefore have a separate license text that spells it out exactly. Not "its this, except scratch half of it because these additional terms override a good chunk of it".

I respect your right to license you product however you want, but please don't call that open source.