It sounds like you've actually had lawyers look at it. A blurb anywhere on this page indicating that it's been vetted this would be pretty powerful!
That said, I think it might be effective to put some short legal opinions, from experts in this particular field, into the FAQ. If anyone's listening: that would make for a great pull request.
The goal here is to make this thing as shipshape, watertight and bulletproof as possible, while remaining "simpler than MIT". Then it becomes the license I would have always wanted to use.
Here's a scenario: you're an IT guy, not much of a programmer. You need to do some weird data processing on 10,000 MBOX archives and you can't mess it up because there's important corporate data in there, although if you did mess up nobody would probably notice for 5 years. Just because programmers disagree on software architecture doesn't mean you shouldn't have a programmer look at your code before you try to run that Perl script.
This license sure looks great. It probably is! It would be neat if we could just know that.
It's a cool thing to publish either way. :)
I've opened a ticket for it: https://github.com/jashkenas/lil-license/issues/3
Jeremy, not that you need the help, but I think this is really neat and if you want to pass the hat around to pay for something formal I'm happy to chip in.