Re: Current status vs 1.0 wishlist, 0.9

[Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:49:38 +0300
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski <gf@unixsol.org> wrote:

> Around 04/24/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Felker scribbled:
> > As for 0.9, there was never a formal wishlist, but I've covered all
> > the intended areas mentioned as short-term goals in the past few
> > release announcements. I think musl could use some more testing
> > scrutiny before the big release (we don't want it to be like gcc
> > 4.7... :), so I'm going to hold off a bit; please continue to report
> > bugs and app compatibility issues so we can get as much working as
> > possible, with as few bugs as possible, for 0.9.
> 
> Hi, there were talks about re-licensing musl to BSD like license, what
> happened to that?

Here's what he said:
|I'll definitely be making some licensing changes down the line. Please 
|give me some time to weigh the benefits of the different options and
|focus on the code, especially at this time while widespread deployment 
|is still a ways off. My idea right now (subject to change at my own whim
|or suggestions from the community) is that the license might change at
|the 0.9 or 1.0 milestone, especially if it looks like we could be
|positioned to push musl into widespread usage "in the wild" at that
|point.

I know at least one developer (working on one of the Puppy Linux variants) who's waiting for this, though I can't say about "widespread" use. Another of the Puppy developers was fairly impressed with the size, though he hasn't switched from uclibc yet (for reasons not known to me).
(I'm getting static binaries a couple kb larger than he gets with uclibc)
-- 
Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>