I've the feeling that this discussion about the Creative Commons license is dominated by some non intentional confusion. Of course Creative Common is not a "fix to open source", since the license itself is not an open source license.
To say that to fix the open source monetization problems we should revert to a non open source license is the same as saying that open source is dead. This is not the case nor the goal of the license AFAIK.
Now I agree about the confusing name "CC" vs "CC (Creative Common)", and also to say OSS-License + CC clause IMHO is inconvenient, and it's better to glue the two parts and call it "$COMPANY Sharing License". But the point is that, that's an alternative to a commercial license.
So the idea here is: it's true that with cloud providers the landscape changed. It's also true that BSD licensed code *implies* everybody can do whatever. So what the cloud changed?
It changed that before, if there was to monetize on OSS, the obvious team to earn the money was the one that invested in the *creation* of it. Now instead you have to compete with similar pricing against who holds the cloud platform itself.
This is like I develop a new kind of tomatoes. A company uses the seeds and do the same tomatoes, however the company is the only one having land at disposal. So I rent their land, and both use tomatoes I invented. Guess the respective margin.
So the idea with Common Clause is, let's try an "open core" (if you want to call it like that... but not a match for Redis) model. What we have more? We are the actual people knowing how to enhance this system, we hack on the core for N years... so what we do?
We create additional value, not under the open source, and release it under a license that allows final customers to use it "almost like it if was OSS", but does not allow who is destroying the market to do the same.
Now you can agree, or may not agree at all, we can agree that the name and license+clause is a non ideal setup. But... 1) Nobody proposed it as a drop in replacement for OSS software. 2) The problem that it attempts to fix is quite obvious.
Note that all that is just my personal opinion, I had no role in the creation of Common Clause, nor I'm writing any code under that license.
