
An embeddable JavaScript interpreter in C - mahmoudimus
https://github.com/ccxvii/mujs
======
jraph
See also QuickJS, Fabrice Bellard's js engine:
[https://bellard.org/quickjs/](https://bellard.org/quickjs/)

(Fabrice also started qemu and ffmpeg, wrote the tiny C compiler and broke
world records for calculating pi)

------
shakna
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.

That 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](https://mujs.com/examples.html)

[1] [https://duktape.org/api.html](https://duktape.org/api.html)

[2]
[https://github.com/svaarala/duktape/blob/master/LICENSE.txt](https://github.com/svaarala/duktape/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

[3] [https://mujs.com/license.html](https://mujs.com/license.html)

~~~
lioeters
From the GitHub repo, they seem to have gone with ISC license [0],
"functionally equivalent to the BSD 2-Clause and MIT licenses".

[0]
[https://github.com/ccxvii/mujs/blob/master/COPYING](https://github.com/ccxvii/mujs/blob/master/COPYING)

~~~
shakna
Well, that's confusing. It's rather different than the one found on the
license page[0] of the site.

I guess it depends where you get the software what license would probably be
considered binding, as it stands.

[0] [https://mujs.com/license.html](https://mujs.com/license.html)

