Machine-readable licenses?

[Andrea Chiarelli]

Gervase Markham wrote:

> No, it's definitely primarily about cataloguing and classifying licenses.

But not describing them in machine-readable way so that a tool can make a 
license understandable by non-lawyer people :-)

>I'm on the mailing list and that is the focus of the discussion. So either 
>the website is unclear on this point, or your first glance gave an 
>incorrect impression :-)

Maybe these features are under discussion, but the current published version 
of the specification (v1.0 beta; 07 August 2010) states simply how to 
specify that a software package or component is released under a license. 
This can be done putting an identifier of a license from a list of common 
licenses or pointing to the text of a non standard license.
Am I wrong?

Regards
Andrea