I understand that. I've looked at it for a bit, but couldn't find anything that compares to the CC license I'm "using" now and just gave up. Also, like you, I'm not a big fan of GPL, and it looks like it's sort of the standard these days.
Yes, I had much the same problem when I was changing some projects from commercial to free or open source. As I understand it, having a non-commercial requirement means it is not strictly speaking open source
, at least by the OSI's definition.
I ended up using the more permissive open source licenses for most stuff, because I figured I wasn't going to make any money from it anyway, so it might as well be as easy for others to use as possible.
But if I were to release something as open source, while still retaining the ability to sell it, I would probably consider the GPL. Even though I object to the way it makes it hard for people to use the code in free (but not GPL) software, the GPL has, in a way, ended up being the most commercial of the open source licenses; if you want to make money selling your open source project, dual-license it under the GPL to get all the benefits of open source, while making it near impossible for companies to use it without buying a separate license from you.
Btw, I think it's great you have released the source and put it on GitHub, so please do not take my comments as being negative, I just find this licensing stuff interesting in a kind of masochistic manner