Change your restricted license and make it truly free software
I don't like these companies entering the market of free software users, knowing that free software was first created by the GNU project (https://www.gnu.org), but then deviating from it, calling it "open source". But hey, please, if you are an author, please don't use it commercially. That is nonsense, especially in the field of text-to-speech 😕. My God, how many people wish to help blind people, but you are restricting commercial usage. What is wrong with you? There is nothing bad in "exchanging" between each other 😒.
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Make it free, do not deceive people, and you cannot truly prevent people using it commercially, as you cannot know it.
Why don't you simply follow the Mozilla examples of free software? Do you think your company is trying to over-compete their TTS products? Spaces for free software are not really good places for restricted software 🚫💔😡
Free, open-source software has existed since the 1950s, long before GNU. GNU popularised a form of it with their licences but they're far from the first, or only, or "the correct" way, These people are not "deviating" from "the way of doing it" or trying to skirt the norms of free software, different ways of doing things have ALWAYS existed and it's part of a creator's freedom to choose how THEY want to licence it. Free software doesn't inherently mean Free as in free speech not as in free beer, that is ONE of multiple forms of free software and YOU don't get to decide what the creator chooses.
You sound very entitled asking "What is wrong with you?", demanding to be allowed to make money off something that you got free. Sure that'd be very nice if it were to be allowed, and I'd prefer things to be as open and free as possible, but it's not something you are just entitled to do because you'd like to, nor does it make the creator's wishes irrelevant. Of course there's nothing wrong with asking for the licence to be changed to something that suits you better, but demanding it and saying they're doing it wrong makes you seem quite unreasonable.
We are not in the 1950s anymore, and the definitions of Free Software and Open Source have evolved into what people collectively agree upon today. The Open Source Definition, as established by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), is fully compatible with the Free Software Definition by the GNU project. This is why licenses like Apache, MIT, and others are widely accepted and used on platforms like HuggingFace. These licenses ensure that software respects users' freedoms, including the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software, whether for personal or commercial purposes.
You seem to misunderstand the core principle of Free Software. It is not about the price (gratis) but about freedom (libre). Anyone is free to make money from Free Software, and that is entirely within the spirit of the movement. What I am criticizing is the deceptive practice of labeling software as "open source" while imposing restrictions that contradict the very definition of Open Source and Free Software. If a license prohibits commercial use, it is not Open Source, nor is it Free Software—it is proprietary software with a different label.
I respect your opinion, but I stand by my point: it is unfair to leverage the work of the Free Software community while restricting others from using it commercially. If a creator wants to make their software proprietary, that is their right, but they should not mislabel it as "open source." This is not about entitlement; it is about transparency and respecting the principles that the Free Software and Open Source communities have fought to establish. If you want to create proprietary software, do so, but do not mislead people by calling it something it is not.
No, it is you who misunderstands, you are conflating the ideals of some Free Software movements with the definition of terms. Open Source and Free Software do NOT inherently mean available for free use for commercial purposes. That is only one of many possibilities that fit the definitions. You are clinging to a very narrow opinion of what it should be, rather than the actual definition. My main gripe with your original comment was that you were acting like a child, demanding that they conform to your way, whinging "What is wrong with you?" and calling them dishonest when they were not, instead of simply asking if they would consider changing the terms to something that you find more favourable.
By the way, if you read the license and the readme/landing page for this project here, it doesn't mention free software or open source even once so you're shouting at them for misusing terms they didn't even use.