Uhm no. If you are using the BSD license or the Apache license, you are explicitly saying: you can use this software as you want, just give me credit, and don't sue me if it does not work. Many companies have used the BSD TCP/IP stack and included it in proprietary software, including the BSD projects. This is something that the non-copyleft open source licenses explicitly permit and has been encouraged by a lot of projects. Using open source software in the cloud is a modern variant of it.

When it comes to copyleft licensing, the goal is that the user of a program or service (in the case of AGPL) can obtain the source code of a program and redistribute it under the same terms.

The goal of open source was never to protect (VC-backed) companies that want to pretent to do open source, but then object when other people earn money with their software.

What you are looking for is a non-open source license, optionally with the possibility to make the source available. That's fine. But please stop hijacking the history of open source and diluting the reputation of open source licenses by calling it Apache 2 License + Commons Clause.

Commons Clause is not open source and had nothing to do with it.

Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.)

What does this poison even do on Hacker News?