new license to review

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
> Another argument, which is vaguer and perhaps less important, is that
> communications protocols are not always considered human-readable, and so
> it may be considered bad form to expect human-readable information to be
> inserted into them.  (Contrast California Business and Professions Code
> 17538.45(f)(3)(B), which encourages the practice.)

Name-dropper.

They don't encourage it, they note that it may be the case in the future.
Nor do they stipulate that it be primarily human-readable, it might be
formatted such that the sending computer could detect the policy decision
and act accordingly.

	Bruce