The new enterprise Co-Action Publishing is dedicated to Open Access (OA) but has a standard Creatice Commons (CC) license which excludes commercial use:

http://www.co-action.net/authors4.html

Science Commons also excludes commercial use when providing its CC addendum:

http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/authorsaddendum.html

I have argued several times that there is no reason to exclude commercial use regarding OA documents.

* There is no legitimation to postulate that the exclusion is according the principles of the "Budapest Open Access Initiative" or the "Berlin Declaration".

There are, in the contrary, strong arguments that commercial use is in the intention of these declarations.

* The most influent OA publishers have licenses which include commercial use, i.e. they have CC-BY licenses.

BioMed Central is the publisher of more than 170 OA journals and has a CC-BY license:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license

All journal content of the "Public Library of Science" (OA flagship) is licensed under CC-BY:
http://www.plos.org/oa/index.html

This is also the case at Hindawi Publishing (60+ journals), e.g.:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/asp/open-access.html

All Digital Peer Publishing NRW licenses include commercial use:
http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/faq/allgemeines/faq2

* The disadvantages of CC-NC has been discussed by Erik Moeller (Wimikedia Foundation Board Member) several times, see in this weblog
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/3208402/ (in German)

The English version of Erik Moeller's article is dedicated to the PUBLIC DOMAIN:
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC