SHshakna·Nov 17, 2019
From what I can see [0], the API is somewhat similar to Duktape's [1], which is good. It's an easy to use API, which gives you as much power as you ask for. (And both have slight improvement's over Lua's, in getting rid of overhead for some things.)
---
Duktape uses the MIT license [2], whereas MuJS has a slightly different license [3] which is much less specific, in fact I'm not entirely certain what the license requires in a legal setting. This particular fragment:
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted
Seems to imply paid licenses for MuJS, but doesn't actually seem to require that a paid agreement be followed, providing a sort of legal escape hatch. It is just a quibble, but legal problems tend to come down to arguments over a half dozen words anyway.
Th
Read the rest
at being said, I'm assuming MuJS is intended to be used as part of the GhostScript environment at some point, and they might have assumed that the two routes will be Artifex licensing + this other license. (The usual AGPL route they follow would have been my choice.)
---
[0] https://mujs.com/examples.html
[1] https://duktape.org/api.html
[2] https://github.com/svaarala/duktape/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
[3] https://mujs.com/license.html