My bad, I was referring to this piece:
The whole disagreement is about that and the following (which is the same thing really).
This sentence has a correct part and an incorrect part. The correct part is about “what I think it shoudl be”, the incorrect part is “it is just the license”. The license does not exist in isolation, it only exists in context, and it complements that context. If you print it and post it on your wall, then whatever it says does not matter unless you point to your wall when you give me a thumbdrive with your STL file. If you post your file on a website and say “public domain” there, then the license on your wall doesn’t matter at all.
Here we have Joe Themaker who posted his model on makerworld.com. Makerworld.com tells me that I can download and print it, provided that I respect the terms of the license, and here’s the license text. The license text does not prohibit printing, so I can print it, because the website tells me I can, and it does not contradict the license terms.
Regrettably, we are armchair-lawyering about something that the license doesn’t say, while the really bad part is what the license actually says, but that’s probably got lost in this thread.