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

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Paige DePol <lual@serfnet.org> wrote:
> Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2017-11-29 13:54 GMT+02:00 Paige DePol <lual@serfnet.org>:
>>> I will, however, advocate that perhaps the community should adopt the "soft
>>> fork" and "hard fork" terminology in order to differentiate compatible and
>>> incompatible derivatives of Lua. That would be very helpful in my opinion.
>>
>> I have also seen the term "hostile fork", e.g. with reference to the
>> ffmpeg/libav tussle.
>
> Well, lets hope that the Lua community never sees a hostile fork!
>
> I am going to use "soft fork" and "hard fork" when I talk about the various
> Lua variants as I believe it is a nice concise way to differentiate them.
>
> I also plan to place a warning in each of my patch files indicating that any
> hard forks will require Lua to be renamed. I will also include a link to an
> online tool I am creating that will generate a patch file to fully rename
> Lua using the information provided by the user.
>
> Now, the MIT license states the following:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> When you run "lua" on the command line you get:
>
> "Lua 5.3.4  Copyright (C) 1994-2017 Lua.org, PUC-Rio"
>
> When I run "lunia" it displays the following instead:
>
> "Lunia 1.0.0  Copyright (c)2017 FizzyPop Studios"
>
> Where should the original copyright be displayed? Perhaps in the output
> from the "-v" command line switch?
>
> I ask so when I create my renaming tool I can be sure to include the
> copyright and permission notice for compliance with the licensing terms.
>
> Normally for software with a GUI I would just add the information to the
> About box or in a seperate Acknowlergements dialog... I have no idea where
> is appropriate for the copyright and notice for a CLI program.
>
> ~Paige
>

It should be noted that it says "included", not "displayed".
Distributing an acknowledgements file packaged with the software
complies with the license, as does including it in the documentation.

The GPL's requirement is quite a bit more strict.

/s/ Adam