One issue to be considered in a an external library standardization
process is the license under which libraries accepted to the standard
are made available.

The obvious choice here is the same license as the OCaml standard
libraries themselves (LGPL V2 + linking exception). Except that this
isn't quite the same as the libraries distributed by INRIA. For those
libraries companies have the option of joining the Caml Consortium, in
which case they may license the standard libraries under a more liberal
(for my intended meaning of the word) 4-clause BSD-like license, which
is probably more appealing to many corporations. For example, you may
wish to consider if you would like ported versions of the libraries
released with F# and how the choice of license might make that possible
or not. It may be worth investigating simply adopting a more liberal
(again, for my intended meaning of the word) BSD-like (3 clause version
perhaps) to spur wider corporate adoption of the proposed standard.

Just something to think about.

I agree that this is an excellent point that needs to be seriously considered. I'm not saying that we need to limit people to the license that they have to choose, I do think that for inclusion in the baseline, the license should meet a set of minimum specific characteristics. In the community that I operate in, licenses are a very serious matter and there are a tremendous number of packages that I cannot use for different projects to do this.

At a minimum, the requirement MUST be that the license type and version is specifically stated and that the requirements of the license are met by the developer (i.e. GPL and LGPL require that each source file have wording and a link to the license).