LICENSE page inconsistency

Hello, the LICENSE page has two conflicts or inconsistencies that I can see.

The "SHORT" description says: "The license is basically [CC-BY-NC](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), revocable and exclusive."

Yet this conflicts with the full Legal license below:
...
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:"
...

Here would be my suggestions as a humble potential user:
1. Suggestion "please get a permission from Ilya Kantor" to "we request that you please inform Ilya Kantor of your intended usage"
(Reasoning: This is confusing. Is the repo under CC-BY-NC, or is not? is it CC-BY-NC **AND** IK's permission? Do I just need IK's permission, and I can ignore the CC-BY-NC?)

2. Suggestion:
Change "The license is basically [CC-BY-NC](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode),revocable and exclusive."
To "The license is unmodified [CC-BY-NC](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode)."

This is very very very confusing. The original CC-BY-NC is both "non-exclusive,and irrevocable"
Have you modified the terms of the CC-BY-NC? If so, why didn't you change the words in the Legal description?

Anyway, you think this is a good idea:
1. Remove confusion about CC-BY-NC license, or CC-BY-NC+IK' permission license.
2. Remove confusion about conflicting language between Short and Legal description.
3. Follow the original, unmodified CC-BY-NC license, which is "non-exclusive,and irrevocable".

Should I submit a PR to see if you like these ideas?

definitions:

"exclusive" means you have agreed to the receive, that they should be the only person/company that you are giving a license to.

"non-exclusive" means you are granting them a license, but you keep the right to give the license to other people/companies. (this is the norm in open-source and default in CC-BY-NC)

"revocable" means you can cancel/terminate the license you previously gave to others. some people won't use your open source software in this case because it is too risky to invest the time.

"irrevocable" means you cannot cancel/terminate the license you previously gave to others. (this is the norm in open-source and default in CC-BY-NC)

Please let me know if I should submit a PR

Start by reading the LICENSE page's SHORT and Legal sections and compare the quoted CC-BY-NC wording with the full text. Done means the maintainer selects and approves wording that removes the conflict about permission, exclusivity, revocability, and the relationship to CC-BY-NC; no file path or test is provided.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.