Their license is not a free software/content license, as it has a non-commercial clause.

I’m frustrated with non-commercial as a clause because it feels difficult to define. Even though selling the content is pretty clear cut, there are so many ways to reuse content that indirectly make money, in a society where everything is business. If I use this content on my resume and then that gets me a job, was it a commercial usecase?

the licence is still in the spirit of open source

that’s the problem. The license is only good in spirit, and simply doesn’t work in practice.

For example, a corporation could run a subsidiary business which doesn’t make enough money to violate the license, which then rents use of the software to the the big corporation. Google used to use a similar scheme, to shift money around and essentially evade taxes.

Although in a legal system where money is a win button, you can’t really win going to win even if they just decided to violate the license.

Anyway, if you don’t want big corporations to use it, just use the AGPL.

Google basically bans use of the AGPL internally — you can’t even install AGPL apps!