Add license

[rnestler]

We should probably add a license to the repository.

Which license?

• MIT OR Apache-2.0 (Rust "standard")
• (A)GPL (Because we maybe want to use GPL'd dependencies)

We will use the AGPL because MIT doesn't give us much advantage since it is not a library. Also it enables us to use GPL'd dependencies. We use AGPL so nobody may run a modified version on a server without publishing the source.

License of current dependencies

• rand MIT/Apache-2.0
• piston MIT
• bincode MIT
• serde MIT/Apache-2.0
• docopt Unlicense/MIT

Agreement of contributors

I agree that my past and future contributions are licensed under the conditions of the AGPL.

• [x] @dbrgn
• [x] @schmijos
• [x] @rnestler
• [x] @das-g

[dbrgn]

I'm in favor of MIT/Apache-2.0 dual licensing.

Edit: Although GPL could be reasonable too, for a game. It's not a library, so we'd probably want the source of all contributions to be available.

[rnestler]

I think I would go with GPL for this one. Can please everybody state if they are OK with that?

[dbrgn]

I'm in favor. Note: I'd actually choose the AGPL, since the game could be served over the network.

[rnestler]

I'm in favor. Note: I'd actually choose the AGPL, since the game could be served over the network.

OK, AGPL it is :+1:

[dbrgn]

@schmijos and @das-g missing :)

[das-g]

AGPL is fine with me. :+1:

[rnestler]

@schmijos Did you tick yourself off in the summary above? Because if yes I'll merge the pull-request.

[rnestler]

@schmijos confirmed to me that he did in fact tick himself off in the summary above.