Re: [Proposal-ish?] Lua should bind the Lua C API as a Lua module

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of the authors of the code and a senior member of the mailing list
> pointed to the standard definition to be used when discussing
> derivatives of Lua software. I have pointed to where the discussion
> veered into what I consider the mistake of redefining terms for the
> sake of redefining terms. If you and Etine consider *that* a mistake,
> it is your right (duty?) on the mailing list to state your opinion.
> Mine opinion still stands. :)
> 
> In-as-neutral-language-as-possible,

Just to be clear, in no way am I disputing the definition of what the
creators of Lua deem to be code that is compatible with Lua, and thus able
to use the name "Lua". That is quite clear and understandable and at no
time did I, or anyone else, dispute this definition.

The only issue I had was with the tone of your reply and the assertion that
the term "fork" was some slang term that was invented by Git, and has no
clear meaning, when it has a well defined and understood meaning. The whole
word just means to split, like a fork in the road... so applied to software
it just means a deviation from the original source, creating a derivative.

Nobody was redefining any terms at any time and I really do not see how you
think that was the case. At any rate, I have really said all I can say on
the subject, with numerous cites from a number of sources to back up what
"fork" means. We will just have to agree to disagree on the matter it seems.

Now, back to more enjoyable pursuits, hacking Lua! ;)

~Paige