Creative Commons includes NC to denote 'no-commercial use'. Initatives in recent years have seeked to reclaim 'Open' as something which cannot include this exclusion. Indeed most open source licenses differ only in the question of share-alike or not (GPL vs MIT). In other words, 'unless commercial exploitation of a working is allowed, then a work isn't open'.
It can be summed up in the statement that: “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness).” Put most succinctly: “Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose”
[[Open GLAM]] use this same definition, as does much of the FOS world:
1 - http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
2 - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
3 - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
4 - http://oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/
There has also been a push by some to get CC-BY-NC changed to make clear that it is not Open (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0/NonCommercial).
Simultaneously there has been a movement within Open Source licenses to carve out exceptions, such as commercial use. While there is considerable pushback (see this thread of replies to a question on the subject, responses range from the many [[Copy Far Left]] licenses to Microsoft's [Shared Source](Shared Source) and Heather Meeker's Common Clause .
NB confusion shouldn't be made with the Open Source Initative approved Non-Profit Open Software License version 3.0 (NPOSL-3.0), which is for non-profits to release GPL code with fewer warranties than for-profits ([explainer](Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 (NPOSL-3.0)).