You know, it occurs to me--people like to have "LICENSEs" like these, even though they're not legally binding (and in fact tend to break integration legally-speaking), because they don't like legalese and don't want to try reading through legalese to pick the legalese most representative of their desires.<p>So, it'd be nice, I think, if we could create a <i>mapping</i> between these sort of "intention-based licenses" and the more legally-strict "implementation-rule-based licenses." Like, to say, "code under the Do I Look Like I Give A Shit License is, in practice, MIT-licensed" or something like that. And then people can <i>pick</i> a license based on intent (instead of reading legalese), and have it <i>map</i> to a license with full legal power.<p>--or, cut out a step, and just give all the current legally-enforcable licenses nice, human-friendly abstracts, for things like the GitHub LICENSE chooser to display.