> the open-source community gets to make use of it as they please

Uhm... I wouldn't be so sure. Looks to me like such a license carries transitively to projects that depend on your software.

Suppose you're distributing a library on such terms. Then an open source project uses your library. Such a project can't then be used in a commercial fashion unless whoever distributes it gets a commercial license from the library's copyright owner. Now suppose the project uses multiple libraries with such terms. That's a burden.

Then again this may be a feature, not a bug, of the model you're proposing.

I suppose that it wouldn't work in practice, though. The AGPL license (and libraries with a GPL license instead of a LGPL one) aren't really widespread, probably because of the virality clause.