help me understand free culture

Recently, I've found my way to the free culture definition wiki through both Benjamin Mako Hill and now Tom Hoffman. Tom says "few understand freedom-driven licensing". I tend to agree as I struggle to see this from the "few's" POV. What I don't understand about the current definition is the absolute negation on any commercial restriction of free culture. A couple weeks ago I anonymously (too lazy to make an account) created a "Commercial Restrictions" section on the discussion page and asked,

"What about some restrictions on the commercial distribution of a work? That is, a free culture work can be copied and those copies can be shared but with some restrictions on selling those copies when permission is not granted."

Angela Beesley was kind enough to respond but in the absolute..."That isn't free content. Commercial Restrictions are explicitly not permissible restrictions."

Generally, I see why commercial restrictions impair freedom. But one particular exception I find acceptable (perhaps even desirable) is a commercial restriction on a work taken to print in meatspace. For example, an author strikes a deal with a publisher of tangible material and grants that publisher the right to sell the work in meatspace form. That is, no other publisher has the right to sell the work in meatspace. Anyone could make meatspace copies to give away or use commercially (e.g. a poster to promote a for-profit performance). This provides the meatspace publisher acquiring the granted right more incentive to fund the printing. Of course, there would be no commercial restrictions in cyberspace.

Can someone help me understand why this specific kind of commercial restriction is not currently acceptable to the free culture definition?