Sure but the importance of commercial use of free software is essential. If nobody could use it for commercial purposes it would get nowhere, and this is something that the free culture crowd often disregards.

Defining commercial is too difficult, and when you prevent selling a copy, you prevent a lot more than that. But still, free software's distribution can, is, and should be paid for. Not always by the end-user or recipent, but even still sometimes. It's a convenience charge or service charge. It costs money to make CD's and USB's and websites that host files. It makes no sense to say that once you host a file on there you can no longer make money from providing that distribution.

Luckily this is not a problem with free software where people try to tack free software licenses with noncommercial clauses, but Creative Commons is all fucked up in this area.