Quoting Miroslav Rovis (miro.rovis@???):

> IOW, I asked for links where it is explained why "the withholding of
> commercial-usage rights" "is not deemed an open source / free-software
> licence".

Quoting OSD #6 from
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated :

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want
commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

and OSD #1:

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.

Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution,
we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term
gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be
lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.



Free software: Corresponding terms (corresponding to the above) are
also in DFSG, because Bruce Perens created OSD by copying DFSG.

Or some would prefer to consult what FSF calls the 'Free Software
Definition', previously call the Four Freedoms Essay.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

'Any purpose' includes use in commerce.



As I mentioned, the CC licences are extremely useful for non-software
purposes, but, because their focus is on encouraging 'remixing' of
cultural content, they offer both open source and proprietary licence
variants in order to make content-providers of all inclinations more
willing to permit _some_ variety of remixing.