No, I doubt he changed his opinion. You're totally right, I misremembered a personal conversation with him where we discussed this principle. Quite embarrassing

No, I doubt he changed his opinion. You're totally right, I misremembered a personal conversation with him where we discussed this principle. Quite embarrassing! It appears that I would defend the traditional falsity condition, like others do, too, and that was probably even part of our disagreement. Regarding the "palter", I'm pretty sure he defended that this is not a lie. But after my misrepresentation of his position you definitely shouldn't take my word for it. This is not my line of work anyway, in my opinion you can define these concepts as needed relative to a more encompassing theory or purpose, and it doesn't make much sense insisting on one definition over the other. For instance, I believe in a legal context a lie could be defined very differently than for purposes of a moral theory. Regarding the everyday use, I find the version with the falsity condition I've presented above the most compelling.