Add guidance to clarify Commons Clause representation

It should be made clear that CommonsClause-licensed software should not use the name of the license that it borrows its other terms from.

E.g. it's possible to create a "Commons Clause license based on conditions from the Apache License v2.0", but due to the fact that Commons Clause takes away the rights that an open source licensee would have, it's confusing and dishonest to use terms such as "Apache license with Commons Clause". Using the name of the Apache License also suggests that such software can be incorporated into Apache Software Foundation projects, which is decidedly not the case (only liberal-use open source is allowed) - see https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

This is different from, e.g., "GPL with class path exception" or from "Affero GPL" and "Lesser GPL" reusing the GPL name because CommonsClause is designed to build a noncommercial-only shared source license by using terms from a permissive open source license, not adding to the rights of software users but taking away enough to cross category boundaries.

The main point is: shared-source licenses are a perfectly fine option for licensing software in general (just like CC-*-NC is a suitable alternative for non-software works), but the license should be presented as such and confusion with open source avoided.

Considering that the number of open source licenses that may inspire a CommonsClause license is relatively small, it may be most helpful to find specific names for them, e.g.
* CommonsClause with Patent Grant (based on terms from the Apache License)