move license to something more permissive about moonshine

[paulcuth]

Don't worry, I'm all over this! Hoping to have some news soon.

[greatwolf]

Awesome, I'm looking forward to a more permissive license as well. MIT would be nice 👍

[paulcuth]

In fact, if anyone interested in a more permissive license could raise their hand here, it would help support my argument and could make this happen sooner.

[danShumway]

I'll raise my hand and also throw out a vote for MIT.

Somewhat related, is the current license of GPL3 intended in this instance to apply to works and software that is compiled or run through Moonshine, or just on modifications to this codebase itself? I tend to get different answers from different people about just how infectious GPL is or isn't, and it would be great to get an answer from the makers. If I have a LUA project that I compile and get running on the web using moonshine, is that then required to be licensed under GPL3 as well?

[o080o]

I would appreciate a more permissive license as well. I'll add another vote for MIT.

[agladysh]

Voting for MIT as well.

[justincormack]

The meaning of GPL for stuff on the web is very unclear, as "linking" is not well defined, it may well mean that you need to release your entire game, including all artwork as GPL for example. The wording was designed for C style linking. So BSD makes much more sense.

[hishamhm]

Regardless of affiliation, I think you all should be careful not to slip into scaremongering.

GPL in a compiler never infected anything, GCC is the prime example, as it has been used to develop proprietary software for decades. Same for interpreters. The AGPL was created specifically for those who want to enforce copyleft in web-distributed software, as this is a well-known "loophole" of the GPL.

[rajeshmanivan]

Voting for BSD or MIT.

[hougaard]

MIT all the way please :)

[robberwick]

MIT 👍

[seanjensengrey]

@justincormack LGPL still keeps the changes to Moonshine public. All other licenses can augment and not give back. Based on how "linking" works in javascript one could argue either way that client code running on the VM wouldn't need to be released. LGPL would make it pretty clear that client code can stay closed while still allowing for changes to be made available.

@hishamhm Bison used to automatically generate GPLed source for certain parsers but that isn't important in this context.

Love the GPL, but this isn't the best use for it.

[justincormack]

@seanjensengrey LGPL means that you need to provide a means for the program to be linked with a new version of the LGPL library, not just provide the source of the LGPL component. This is somewhat difficult to comply with, eg if you have an online game using the library, you would have to provide a way to play it with a modified copy of Moonshine. This is feasible but somewhat onerous.

[samkellett]

MIT would be great!

[paulcuth]

Fixed in a310947.

Thank you all for helping me push this through, it's very much appreciated. Enjoy!

[seanjensengrey]

Oh wow! Thanks Paul. I'll port some Lua Love trinkets over to http://impactjs.com/ejecta and http://tannerrogalsky.com/punchdrunk/ and post a gist on it.

Great news everyone!