Small Licensing Question

[Granock]

Netstone itself is AGPLv3 licensed which requires you to publish all your sourcecode, including your own application even across process boundaries, on request, when users can access it.
Other lodestoneparsers like nodestone or gostone are mit-licensed.

is there a specific reason that only netstone is licensed under a strong copy-left license and those other parsers are licensed in a less restrictive way?

Update:

List of contributors:

• goaats
• Koenari
• karashiiro
• Tawmy
• WesselKuipers
• corielljacob
• ge7nic
• istMiyo

[goaaats]

It used to be my default license, I sadly didn't think too much about it when I set up this repo. I wouldn't mind relicensing to something more permissive whatsoever, probably MIT.

Most of the code is from @Koenari and me, we could probably reach out to the other people that have contributed and get their approval.

[Koenari]

I do not mind switching the license to MIT. I personally default to MIT now.
I will reach out to all the contributors and get approval. Since I have a lot of work to do in my day job I can't really give an ETA though

[karashiiro]

I approve of switching to MIT.

[Granock]

I updated the issue with a list of all contributors that github shows, so it is easier to track who has responded. Hope that helps