What an incredibly uncivil article. How can one say this when, in basically every HN thread on this subject, it had to be explained to at least one person that this is not an Apache license?
No one should be surprised that programmers react negatively to misleading names and namespace pollution.
I would like to see the discussion move from the messenger to the idea (now that hopefully everyone actually understand it!). This is a very important topic to figure out.
IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the Apache 2 License to require cloud users to put some unflattering notice in their documentation:
If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear.
Offer the option to purchase a license to the software without the requirement to display the notice.
But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.
But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).