> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.

No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.

Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive.

A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?

It's incompatible with all open source licences.

For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.

Note that representatives of the Apache Foundation have repeatedly requested to not use this misleading naming scheme, which has seemingly been totally ignored.

Is there a reference for that? That would convince me that it is a bad idea to use that naming scheme then.

a few links:

back in may: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment...

https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomme...

https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 (also an Apache Board member)