I'm not a lawyer, but currently run an open-source project using a Lesser General Public License (LGPL v. 2.1). I reviewed various open-source license models before selecting LGPL; which happens to be quite accepting of commercial use of my software. It doesn't mean that, for example, people can rename and repackage my software without proper credit, etc.
You can modify the license yourself or with the help of a lawyer if you are not satisfied with the existing models. There is nothing preventing you from modifying the existing models or writing your own license agreement for open-source. Just be sure to make it clear to everyone that you're not using an original unmodified model.
As you probably already know, open-source doesn't even necessarily mean that the software is free. You can for example, start from a commercial license model. The difference from most common uses is that you offer use of the source code, under certain defined rules, not just the executable. That's the defining character of "open source," not limits to recovery of damages if the rules are violated.
In the end, my guess is that you want to recover a realistic amount of damages rather than simply making a statement and stopping someone from violating the agreement. Language can be included in the license that allows you to do that. I'm not sure you'd be stopped from doing it using limited use licenses, unless the license specifically says that damage recovery is limited or explicitly states a limited remedy for violation.