Re: Name for Windows Binary Project. Was: Re: [ANN] https://github.com/PUC-Lua

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:36 PM, KHMan <keinhong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2018 2:27 PM, Russell Haley wrote:
> [snipped everything else]
>>
>> I'm glad the name is sticking. I created a logo (which I hope will be
>> replaced!).
>>
>> https://github.com/WinLua
>>
>> For clarity,
>>
>> The project name would be WinLua, the current output would be the
>> WinLua Installer. The "Installed Product" would be Lua XX Bit. The
>> "Manufacturer" of the "Installed Product" is PUC-Rio and the Kepler
>> Project (lfs). The license of the "Installed Product" is MIT. The
>> license of the installer is er... I think I'll relent and make it MIT
>> (Not FreeBSD. Sad face).
>
>
> No, YOU are the manufacturer. Don't bring PUC-Rio into this. They are not
> responsible for anything you do. An end user should be asking questions from
> you, not PUC-Rio. I also think the Kepler project is also not responsible
> for anything, unless something was explicitly agreed upon.
>
> Although it is appropriate to acknowledge the origin of Lua and such, IMHO
> PUC-Rio should not be construed in any way as the 'manufacturer' of the
> software to be installed. Also, it has been discussed that "PUC-Rio" is not
> specific enough, it's an entire U.
>
> If you are not clear about this sort of thing, seek help.

Thank you.  :)

So then the entry in Program Files should be:
Program Files\Lua\5.3\...
or
Program Files\WinLua\???

My preference in this case is for the former.

Further, the name in the "Installer Programs" list should be:
"Lua 5.3 xx Bit"?
or
 "WinLua v.v xx Bit"

In this case, the latter makes versioning and perception very
difficult (in my mind).

I understand about the Manufacturer after your comment. Thank you.

Need sleep.
Russ

>
> --
> Cheers,
> Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
> Selangor, Malaysia
>
>
>