From that page:
> The Commons Clause is a license condition drafted by Heather Meeker that applies a minimal-form commercial restriction on top of an existing open source license
Making it proprietary and failing the Open Source Definition.
You cannot have Commons Clause 'on top' of an existing Open Source license. This is impossible. You can only replace the existing Open Source license with Commons Clause.
The page is a bunch of (insert HN-guidelines-appropriate word for 'very incorrect information').
> This Clause is not intended to be applied against at-scale existing open source projects, but incrementally on top of commercial counterparts that need to be transitioned to source-availability to satisfy urgent business or legal requirements.
Commercial and Open Source aren't opposites - this a very basic mistake made by people who are new to OSS. There are many Open Source commercial projects (your bank runs on Red Hat Linux, which is entirely OSS, with everything but the Red Hat logos allowed to be reproduced) and many non-commercial proprietary projects. It's scary that a company called 'Fossa' whose specialty is 'Modern open source management_' is confused about this.
> The original Open Source Definition represents an immensely important set of ideals that carried many projects to success during the earlier days. However, the open source ecosystem has changed a lot over the past 10 years, and the conditions of the modern landscape has forced change for the sustainability of many projects.
The project wants to create a new OSD which isn't Open Source.
The 'drafter' of this license seems to have simply re-created Shared Source per Ballmer-era Microsoft.