Great question!
The problem here isn’t so much that Creative Commons isn’t usually applied to software, but rather that restricting software usage by requiring noncommercial applications makes your work not open source. This is definitely incompatible with the TUD policy.
about the TUD policy
TUD is the actual owner of all software you write. Right now the policy says "declare everything at the valorization center" and don't do anything without permission (everyone ignores it though because it's not workable). The new policy, which is being finalized now, will:- Apply to all software which you may publish at all (no restrictions from the funding or legal side)
- Grant you the ownership over this software, provided that you publish it under a pre-approved open source license and declare this.
Off the top of my head, pre-approved licenses are CC0, BSD, MIT, Apache, EUPL, LGPL, GPL.
In specialized research software the driving force behind open source licenses being competitive with company offers are the community good will and the cheap expert labor. I expect that having a noncommercial license hurts both of these factors by making others less likely to contribute back, and also more reserved in using your work.
As far as the licence choice goes, I recommend BSD or MIT (all of my research software uses these). If you feel possessive, use GPL3.0 (it is conceptually equivalent to CC-BY-SA), but I feel that these
days it will bring you fewer contributions from users rather than more.