Is it no longer open source?
Correct, what you describe is taking a free/open-licensed piece of software and then publishing a derivative of that work under a non-free/open proprietary license. I use "free" and "open" as defined by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative, both of which consider it outside their definitions to have to pay a third party whenever one person distributes the software to another.
Note there isn't any limitation, under these definitions, against charging money for copies of your software. Rather, these definitions don't permit you to limit others' ability to distribute or use the software, either for a price or gratis.
does the GPL, MIT or copyright prevent me from saying "if you earn money with this derived software, you must pay something to support my work" but otherwise my parts of the software is free for personal, open source, charity and noncommercial use.
In fact, the GPL and MIT licenses resolve this question differently. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means the GPL permits you to distribute derivative works only if you do so under the GPL as well, with no other requirements. In this way, you cannot introduce non-free terms to your derivative of a GPL-licensed work. By contrast, permissive licenses (like MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses) do allow you to distribute derivatives under less permissive terms, so you could introduce non-commercial terms (or any other non-free limitations) in the license for your derivative.
Note that even permissive licenses usually still require you to credit the upstream authors by preserving their copyright notices and original license terms, but do not forbid you from adding your own license terms.
Is it fair?
I will note that, within the FLOSS community, there can be a substantial cultural divide around whether allowing or forbidding the introduction of downstream limitations makes a license "more" or "less" free (i.e., either because it's so free that it even permits adding limitations, or because it's so free it would never admit any downstream limitations to that freedom).
Regardless of how you feel about this question, authors who license their work under permissive licenses have positively afforded you the right to carry out just such a plan as you describe in your question, and those authors who offer work under the GPL (or other strong copyleft licenses) have not allowed you do so.
