IMO, this is impossible. Even really formal rules systems like law need a lot of interpretation (eg courts/judges) to bridge the gap between abstract and parti

IMO, this is impossible. Even really formal rules systems like law need a lot of interpretation (eg courts/judges) to bridge the gap between abstract and particular, and to adapt to culture. Even so, explicit laws and contracts can never really cover everything, for example, in employer/employee relationships, business/consumer relationships, etc. A more subjective cultural layer does most of the work. It's not as enforceable as the explicit, contractual layer. This example is, IMO, pretty normal and OK. There is the explicit license, which governs the legal side. There's the unenforceable request, which can still be made. There's recourse, relicensing. There is a subjective layer, which is what this article is doing. Should X have honoured the request? Was it ok for Y to make the request? Was reliscencing against the spirit of open source? We need the whole package. Society can't be written down, because we don't really have the full spec. Explicit, legible rules are important, but they're a cornerstone and a fall back.