Terminology and definitions

[maxashen]

This license is not intended to ... [s]tart arguments about terminology or definitions.

Apologies beforehand if I am trespassing on your intentions, but terminology and definitions are critical in licenses. For example the very word "argument" is ambiguous in this sense, it could mean one of two things:

1. A discussion in which the parties involved express disagreement with one another; a debate
2. An angry discussion involving disagreement among the participants; a quarrel

By context and good faith (that the above quotation is not a gag rule) I am assuming the intended meaning is the quarrel definition. But it is risky to leave ambiguity in a legal document! Ambiguity should only exist in a final draft when consensus could not be reached; only then is ambiguity an acceptable compromise. Why leave it to a judge to determine the meanings of words if there could be explicit definitions?

[jakimfett]

You're very much correct, also note that the "not intended to start arguments" bit is not actually included in the legal portion (just in the readme file).
I'll never shut down constructive, good faith criticism. I normally allow discussions to veer pretty far into the "toxic and unproductive quarrel" realm before I shut it down precisely because I want to encourage discussion and want to do everything possible to avoid killing legitimate criticisms.
EDIT: I really, really appreciate your in-depth analysis of the license, this is precisely the sort of input I need to help make this license as permissive and inclusive as possible.