[lsb-discuss] compliant vs. certified (was Re: Unofficial LSB conference call minutes (2012-04-18, 11 to noon))

Jeff Licquia licquia at linuxfoundation.org
Thu Apr 19 16:28:08 UTC 2012


On 04/18/2012 06:00 PM, Craig Scott wrote:
> The LSB might get more people creating LSB-compliant packages if there
> wasn't a cost associated with being able to say your package was LSB
> compliant. Few are going to bother with the cost associated with saying
> their application is LSB compliant (I'm not talking about distros here).
> For most ISV's who bother, it would be enough to simply make their
> packages LSB compliant but not actually state that. This does the LSB
> itself no favours, since it doesn't get any income out of it and it
> doesn't get any publicity. I can't help but wonder if application
> packages need something a bit less rigorous. Perhaps if a package passes
> the automated application checker, that should be enough for that vendor
> to publicly state that their package is LSB compliant? I know this would
> slightly loosen the rules a bit, but if you want to give the LSB some
> visibility without impacting the standard itself, this might be one way
> to do it.

I think we've always let people claim LSB "compliance" if they run the
tests; it's LSB "certified" that we require the process for.

We've also had several-year stretches where we waive the fee.  I think
the cost associated with LSB certification is more about the time of the
developer than the actual fee.
-- 
Jeff Licquia
The Linux Foundation
+1 (317) 915-7441
licquia at linuxfoundation.org

Linux Foundation Events Schedule:  events.linuxfoundation.org
Linux Foundation Training Schedule: training.linuxfoundation.org


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list