> The problem isn't charging for software; the problem is charging and preventing others from redistribution and access to source code.
This is simply not what Commons Clause does, you really should read it. Access to the source code is not prevented. And redistribution is not prevented either, on the condition that end users do not sell it. That is all.
> As for losing interest in maintaining software, I don't see how Commons Clause helps.
It helps by allowing someone to actually build a business around their work without fear of "unfair" competition ("unfair" is in quotes because it is legal and in line with FOSS, it just doesn't seem fair to me [0]).
[0] https://onezero.medium.com/open-source-betrayed-industry-lea...
RMS/FSF goal is to protect the rights of end users. Not developers. That's the difference between copyleft and permissive licenses. Commons Clause is neither, and it seems focused on the wrong thing. The problem isn't charging for software; the problem is charging and preventing others from redistribution and access to source code.
As for losing interest in maintaining software, I don't see how Commons Clause helps.