2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Chad writes:
I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license with highly debatable terms.
Without defending the particulars of CC's phrasing, which I think has its problems but which I also think is better than you allow for here, I'll offer my opinion that a license a license without any vagueness or debatable terms is such a rarity that I don't think I've ever seen one.
It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.