Comment by sowbug

Are there any instances where a fork of a project has altered the license language for the purpose of reducing this kind of ambiguity?

Either the original license grant is expansive, so the clarification is welcome and the fork will become the standard unless/until the modification is upstreamed, or else the grant is restrictive, so the fork language is invalid, and the grantors face the risk of laches or other equitable defenses if they don't stop the fork from offering the less ambiguous interpretation that grantees rely on.

Fork as legal test case, if you will.