If anything it's a tautology, open source by definition allows commercial use.

No, you can sell open source software commercially. That being said, I'm wondering if the license will truly be open source or more like Stable Diffusion's license which is not really open source.

I think you could've googled that one and founds years of knowledge on that one.

Free as in beer Vs free as in speech and the whole thing.

Commercial presumably as opposed to non-commercial licensing (e.g. the CC BY-NC license, or the weird situation LLaMa is in).

If you listen to the definition the Open Source Initiative would have applied to the term open source had they succeeded in acquiring rights to the term, then commercial is redundant with open source, not the opposite of it.