Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never
occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over
what is on YouTube.
We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting
to know.
It's none of our business.
Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.
The links themselves, I repeat, are free. The point of contention is whether a link by
itself IS a copyright violation.
And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers
immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.
All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright
violation, and cannot be licensed.