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?

extreme views

In the preface to the Vintage Edition of “The Future of Ideas”, Lawrence Lessig refers to his radio talk show experience that then RIAA president Hilary Rosen phoned into and "argued" -

“It's ironic that [Lessig] is on promoting a book when, if he actually went to his overall philosophy, he should essentially be giving it away on the Internet instead of selling it in a bookstore.”

More recently, our favorite billionaire/philanthropist Bill Gates said -

"I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.”

An aspect of computing I appreciate is that at its core, it's discreet and predictable. That is, it's either on or off – 0s and 1s. Life however, is rarely this simple. Right and wrong is often difficult to decipher and we are left with our intuition, reason, and willingness to explore issues in order to reach conclusions upon which to base our actions. However, The Rosens and Gates of this world would love nothing more than to convince us that copyright, trademark, and patent laws can be meaningfully corralled under the “Intellectual Property” umbrella. You either “believe in intellectual property” as Gates says, or you don't. You're either with us or you're a “modern-day sort of communist”.

Will you join the Church of "Intellectual Property"? Will you "believe" that free software and free culture advocates are "communists"?