You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions. As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key on their keyboard by mistake. As far as I know, FTP masters are human beings and can therefore make mistakes: both in pressing keys *and* in analyzing packages from a DFSG-freeness point of view.
You seems to think that they an absolute "transcendental" property of "free" that have to be discovered. Debian is a community that consider some works free and other works non-free. They have written guidelines to help to decide where to class a given license but these are only guidelines not something absolute and the final answer has yet to be decided.
Debian has set rules to decide who precisely is entitled to class a given license. As long a given license has been accepted as free following the rules; then it means that is considered free by Debian; the criterion for admissibility in main. If the ftp masters have decided that a license is free; then indeed it is the decision of Debian. If still contentious; this decision can be reverted by a vote.
It can be that you do not understand how this decision follow the DFSG but it simply means that your reading of the DFSG is different from the one of the ftp masters. There is not an "absolute" coorect reading of the DFSG; but in this case; following the rule of Debian; it is the reading of the ftp masters that is by definition the good one (or the one of the people voting).
I think there is a derive in this list. Participants seems to thinks that they are the members of a jury who have to decide whether a given work is "free". But the participants here are not entitled to take decisions; the purpose of this list is just to discuss license, not to decide. I vehemently object about people speaking of a "consensus" on this list about a license being non free. A license being non free is a license who is not considered free by the Debian as an organization; it has nothing to do with the opinions of people posting on this list. We just see a small group of people who try to take powers that they have not.
For the moment, CC-v3.0 has been accepted following the rules for many packages. You can say that you do not agree in the sense that you would *like* this license to be rejected; that's your opinion. But if someone ask if this license is acceptable for main he does not ask your opinion, nor the opinion of the members participating in Debian legal; he asks the opinion of Debian as an organisation believing (often wrongly) that people here will be able to answer. The only answer for now for CC-v3.0 is "yes" because that have already been decided for other other packages. Expressing his opinions and let people who asks a question think that one speaks in the name of or gives the opinions of Debian is simply dishonest. When reading answer to questions; I very often have this feeling.
Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
