From: Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Firstly, this isn't the right venue for a discussion of the general principle of non-commercial licensing, especially as the Foundation has decided on the use of licences that permit commercial reuse.
In my opition it's not a terribly offtopic subject for this list, but let my clarify that my intent is not to revisit the current licensing policy of Wikimedia projects.
I just thought that this could be useful to someone advocating for the use of fully libre licenses (the ones without any non-commercial clauses) outside Wikimedia projects, as it shows how the non-commercial clause could be interpreted by some actors that have resources and rights to go to court over your use of the work.
And secondly, there's nothing to prevent a rights owner from granting a full/libre licence if they want to for the works they own: so why would one need to advocate for it, here or anywhere else?
Because many people think that non-commercial is good enough, for instance MPs establishing laws touching Freedom of Panorama.
Best, Yury.