Hi MagicFab,
the license is correct. We have traditionally published the documentation under a creative commons license, hoping to receive contributions and improve it under a community-driven model. Deploying it on a wiki was always on our roadmap, although we expected that to certainly imply some extra effort in maintenance from our side, so we waited for the first contributions before doing so.
However, realising that by version 2.0 we had received no contribution whatsoever, we dropped the creative commons license, as by the moment there seems to be no benefit for the project and the community does not seem to care about it (you are the first one to raise the issue since we published it six months ago). If you have a different opinion please, let me know, I am open to suggestions.
Cheers,