EDIT1 (february 11): Disclaimer
This journal entry solely and entirely relates to issues about Creative Commons.
Please stop saying 'if you don't want people to lucrate on your efforts'. If that's your way of reasoning, you should stop reading this now. Creative Commons are about sharing ideas instead of limiting their use. The latter is something Copyright is there for. Creative Commons are an alternative to Copyrights. Please stop wasting my time with that. There has been not one single reply to this entry so far that is in topic. I won't answer to offtopic any longer.
The ever increasing use of Creative Commons instead of Copyright is to be commended and admired, but there's still a huge portion of people that include the Non Commercial clause, something whose existence itself is controversial. Why? Stop and think about it.
It's contrary to the very essence of Creative Commons! If you don't want people to commercialize the stuff you put in CC, then you're obviously taking CC's essence the wrong way, and should use (C)opyright instead!
The NC clause should not even exist because:
-It makes your work incompatible with a growing body of free content, even if you do want to allow derivative works or combinations.
-It may rule out other basic and beneficial uses which you want to allow.
-It supports current, near-infinite copyright terms.
-It's unlikely to increase the potential profit from your work, and a share-alike license serves the goal to protect your work from exploitation equally well.
And last but not least, it does not have a clear indication of what 'commercial' means, leading to further controversy.
Think about it!
Or read more here: [link]