I am quite aware of that issue. All I was saying any license other than public domain puts some sort restriction/requirement on users. Vendors are users too, and ideally they would not try close off open source code. So a good OSS license should unobtrusive, and reasonable to users who are not trying engage in shenanigans. These are obviously restrictions since the license tries to prevent underhanded behavior, but I woulds say a reasonable compromises since we don't live in a perfect world where everyone is honest.
Despite it's confusing name I would say this "commons license" was attempt to stop what they see has underhanded behavior. However, as I said before it's a comprise too large since really does have the potential limit a lot of freedoms. I would say it's anything but unobtrusive.
However, the OP author of the article also appears dismissive or closed to any criticism.
It’s been tried. Unix vendors would take publically available code (MIT’s X Windows), close it off, and prevent system administrators from touching it, or only release it under NDA.
Freedom for the vendors, not for the users.