[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Mike Godwin]

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.


--Mike