That is completely incorrect. If a piece of software is licensed under the GPL or the MIT, you have the right to use it for any purpose. If it didn't, it wouldn't meet the free software definition, nor the open source definition.
You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.
> The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.
GPLv3 added two new concept.
1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go sue them for patents.
2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical restrictions from technical means.
What has either to do with commercial use?
The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions.
Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction because it is explicit in this license.