One of the things you learn pretty quickly in the open source community is that "non-commercial use" is not a well-defined term. This is why the Open Source Definition doesn't allow for clauses to restrict commercial use. The same can't be said for Creative Commons, and they're looking for some help in defining the term by December 7th.
Says Joi Ito:
Because we want to reach as many people as possible, this is an open access poll, meaning the survey is open to anyone who chooses to respond. We hope you will help us publicize the poll by reposting this announcement and forwarding this link to others you think might be interested. The questionnaire will remain online through December 7 or until we are overwhelmed with responses -- so please let us hear from you soon!
The Creative Commons licenses allow for creators to choose a license that only allows for "Non-Commercial" use, but it's often foggy when use becomes commercial and when it doesn't. Is it commercial use if you use a CC-licensed work in something being sold? Probably. Is it commercial use if you use a CC-licensed song in a Webcast that has no sponsors, but can be downloaded from a site with Google Ads? What about a link to an Amazon Wishlist? You can come up with dozens of cases where it's not entirely clear if the use of a CC-licensed work constitutes commercial or non-commercial.
Just when does the use of a work cross over from non-commercial to commercial? The first time money changes hands? When you make a profit? Tell me how you think CC should define "non-commercial," or if they should even allow for the exception in the first place. (And take the survey!)