(list changed from conference call people to lsb-spec). > We should talk about an appropriate license that reflects the > community nature of the project. Something like the LDP or OSWG > licensing.
Yes, we've talked about the LSB license before and I've been wanting a clarification that we are going for a license of the LDP/OSWG/&c sort (there was some pushback on the last conference call; I don't know whether that was a strong opinion but I feel strongly that we need a license which lets people use/modify the text of the standard - with stricter limits on use of the name). The current candidate seems to be the FHS license (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-license.html) which would be fine with me.
