This is sadly the standard license for work produced at Facebook AI Research (FAIR) going back at least three or so years. Most researchers are not deeply invested into the details of licensing, so many of them simply assume it is properly open when they see Creative Commons and move on to do more research. This of course ignores the obvious problems with non-commercial licenses, such as the fact that the definition of a commercial entity might very well involve large chunks of the academic world.

Thus, the choice of whatever bloodsu^Wlawyers inside Facebook that pushed this through as the default has had very nasty consequences. However, researchers inside FAIR can apply internally to have an actually open license applied to their work and I have never heard of it being denied. It is not fun (paperwork), but once you sit down and calmly explain the problems with non-commercial licensing and how it likely limits the uptake of their work, many will start pushing for it. My advice is thus just to try to stay positive and talk to the researchers about this rather than try to shame them (not that I have seen this in this thread).

It should also be stated that although this licensing is not "good enough", it is still better than "Open"AI, DeepMind, and many others that gladly just sit on all but a miniscule amount of the code, data, and models they produce.