People who know #WikimediaCommons well, I'm thinking of joining and contributing street-level view photographs of identified places for the purpose of photo linking on #OpenStreetMap, but Wikimedia Commons specifically forbids non-commercial licenses. I do not get the reason why that is, and I would rather not grant a commerce-enabling license to a tech company/foundation. What's up with that?

@SharpLimefox@eldritch.cafe looks like because they publish stuff like DVDs and books or something, look at the first sections comic (on the English page at least)

@theking yeah i read it and i simply do not see why i just can't choose not to be featured in these commercialized media

@SharpLimefox I read a bit the Licensing page and saw this passage:
"Works which are not available under a license which meets the Definition of _Free Cultural Works_ are explicitly not allowed."
So i've gone a bit on the related pages on this "definition" and found this page: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC#The_case_for_Free_use:_reasons_not_to_use_a_Creative_Commons_-NC_license

Basically it seems one another bullshit about "it's non-free because it restricts people who cannot do whatever they want with this blablabla"

@jill that page really is just a load of bullshit, uh

welp, i guess Wikimedia Commons can go in the same trash can that Mapillary or Flickr belong in 🤷