No. I may have a guess of what the intended license is but what the license says is complete nonsense. It's self contradictory.

If they want to let people use it in non-commercial settings but are willing to provide a license for commercial use, then they could have provided a non-commercial license.

If they wanted to provide a FOSS license, then they should have provided one and offered a dual license option (by the actual commonly accepted usage of that term in this context).

If they want to make an MIT-like license but make it for non-commercial use, then they should just call it a non-commercial license and not confuse the issue by claiming it's MIT.

As it stands, they've provided a FOSS license, that explicitly allows the use, modification, redistribution and resale in commercial settings, but slapped a "non-commercial" term at the top of it.

"Please use this software however you like, including in commercial settings, redistributing it for profit and modifying it for your commercial use. Also, don't use it for commercial use"

What?