[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Michael Snow]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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.
>   
Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.

--Michael Snow