[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/1/22 Mike Godwin <mgodwin at 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.