Creative Commons offers noncommercial licenses even more restrictive than Commons Clause.
I'd've picked a different name, too. But the idea that "commons" means only open source, or only free software, doesn't sit right. Compared to pulling their software back as fully closed or source-available, all-rights-reserved, a Commons Clause combo makes a lot more available.
Creative Commons specifically recommends against the use of any of their licenses for software. The CC licenses are primarily intended to be applied to artistic works, and the NC/ND variants make a lot more sense in that context.
You're right. And I'm well aware. But I don't think that changes my point on "commons". CC-BY-NC is a "commons" license for artwork, music, screenplays, scripts, poems, and novels. Why wouldn't a noncommercial software license be a "commons" license, as well?
I'd've picked a different name, too. But the idea that "commons" means only open source, or only free software, doesn't sit right. Compared to pulling their software back as fully closed or source-available, all-rights-reserved, a Commons Clause combo makes a lot more available.