# GNU C Library Alternative Musl Libc Hits 1.0 Milestone



## overmind (Mar 26, 2014)

This is not a very new news but it did not appear here and I am curious about your opinion regarding this project:

http://linux-beta.slashdot.org/stor...brary-alternative-musl-libc-hits-10-milestone

What would be the advantages of using it, if it will be ported (maybe it is already) to FreeBSD.


----------



## ronaldlees (Mar 28, 2014)

The title line references an Interesting project IMO, thanks for the link.

This is probably more of an impact for Linux, rather than for FreeBSD, which already has its independent libc.  Given that libc differences are the _mother of all incompatibility issues_, I don't think I'll be importing it into any of my FreeBSD instances.  There is a small sub-sect of Linux users who want to get away from the GPL.  The musl libc project could be a good start towards implementing the goals of these splinter groups, but simultaneously it would fragment Linux into two not-very-compatible forks (A BSD/MIT licensed camp versus a traditional one).  

I've been looking for good libc "starter" bases for some bare-metal+ setups I've been dreaming about.  I've already found a few of those, but they seem a bit too minimalistic.   Maybe I'll have a look at Musl.  I've already dismissed Adroid's Bionic as too heavy (even though Bionic was derived from FreeBSD libc). I probably should just follow in the steps of Google and use a skeletal FreeBSD libc.


----------



## ronaldlees (Mar 28, 2014)

I  guess there could never be a *totally* BSD licensed Linux, but the Linux kernel exceptions make it possible to have a substantially BSD licensed one...


----------



## sossego (Mar 29, 2014)

BSLinux, hmmm......


----------



## ronaldlees (Mar 30, 2014)

You speak the truth...

http://lwn.net/Articles/38528/


----------

