Ben Finney wrote:
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:debian2007@macfreek.nl wrote:There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this way are in main.Note that the latter does not necessarily imply the former. Many packages have been in main against the advice of a consensus view on debian-legal that the package is non-free.
I think also that a consensus on debian legal that something is non "free" (which should more accurately called "DFSG-free" since not everybody has the same definition for "free") does not mean it is indeed non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp masters or a vote can decide litigious cases. There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free but were declared non-free by "consensus" on debian legal (the GFDL without non modifiable section is an example).
Olive