This is an excellent example of how engineers tend to mis-analyze
legal issues. In law, neither simple wording nor interpretation is so
simple or so mechanical as the things engineers prefer to work with.
Take an example: "Thou shalt not kill". Very clear, but also very
problematic in that it does not address military conquests (which were
apparently approved by that law's drafter), self-defense, or a number
of other cases.
There are always grey areas between what is explicitly addressed and
what is not. Courts interpret laws and precedent in ways that make
life (and license or contract writing) more unpredictable. Wishing
otherwise will not make a simple license unambiguous. If those areas
of ambiguity are exploited enough, the perceived cost of having a hole
will exceed the perceived cost of plugging it.