Such a license would neither be regarded as free software nor open source.

Some other alternative could be making GPL-3.0-or-later + a Contributor License Agreement a more common option, so that it is possible to tell companies that if they want to use the library in some closed-source application, they need to work out a license deal.

CLAs are frequently involved in turning software proprietary though, so it isn't exactly held in the highest esteem in the FOSS community.

And without a CLA you essentially get the Linux kernel situation, which will be stuck on GPL2 forever, since they can't reasonably get everyone to agree to switch to GPL3, especially since some copyright holders are not just unwilling, but unreachable or dead (and in several jurisdictions copyright lasts for decades after death).

Personally I suspect public funding, similar to science, education and libraries, is a more likely option, though that'll be an uphill political struggle a lot of places.