Let's say we have a non-commercial photo-editing application, call it NCIMP. You're a hobbyist photographer, so your buddy wants to pay you to take wedding photos for him. That's a commercial use, right? Better get that commercial license... which you might not be able to get if there are hundreds of contributors to NCIMP and they don't have any organisation to whom they're assigning copyright.

So from the end user perspective, either you're paying an organisation for a commercial license, in which case it's not that different from just getting a license for Photoshop (sure, you'd have to pirate Photoshop to get it for free, but they only really go after commercial users for copyright infringement anyway and they mainly rely on employees to snitch), or you've sunk time into learning how to use a photo-editing application to develop skills you can't even accept compensation for... At which point, you may as well just have learned how to use Photoshop to begin with; if you're starting to learn photography even as a hobby, why choose to either limit yourself to never being able to take a photography gig or have to relearn new software for the same task? Even if you don't plan on doing any paid work, it doesn't make sense to use it unless the software is much better, which it probably won't be if it's being developed by exclusively hobbyist photographers who themselves can't use it for any professional work.

Music and books have a lot of similarities to software in that the cost of copying is nearly free and people want to use stuff everywhere.

Music and books aren't maintained and don't require it. An old song or an old book doesn't change. You can create new songs and new books based on old songs and old books, but they're different things. In contrast, software is in a never-ending battle against irrelevancy. You could use an old version of a piece of software, but then you can't open new versions of the file format for the same piece of software. You can always enjoy an old song or book, but old software will become less and less useful over time.

Songs and books typically have a limited and closed number of contributors. If people remix works, they remix an original, or a cover - the authorship chain is much shorter than what we see with software, which can in contrast involve hundreds of authors. If you want a license type involving a commercial license, you're going to have to need some sort of copyright assignment - and at that point, you've just created a corporation that sells commercial licenses for software. If you don't do this, anyone who wants to use it for commercial purposes will then have to track down a couple hundred authors and ask each of them for a commercial license. What if one of the refuses no matter what the price is? And then we end up in the second case, where the software can only ever end up used by amateurs.

Of course you can have a software project run by only a handful of people - but then they either have to refuse any and all outside contributions, or they have to require copyright assignment.

These sorts of problems can exist with the GPL if your business is selling GPL exceptions (e.g. Qt), but you don't have to do that to make money off of GPL software. And whereas a consumer of GPL software has zero reason to care about whether the software is GPL or BSD or MIT or whatever because they're probably not modifying and distributing it (and hence zero reason to ever require an exception), a consumer of software requiring noncommercial use will inevitably have to pay attention to this sort of stuff and require an exception for something as simple as turning a hobby into a side gig.

Based on what we see in the music industry I suggest we don't do this.