Pilkara back online, tho not on www.pilkara.com (second try)

[Remy]

[09:33] <Acers> rene
[09:33] <Acers> is het een idee om een soort pilkara onmline te gooien ?
[09:34] <Acers> aangezien die offline zijn
[10:37] <[]lch[]remy> lol ace
[10:37] <[]lch[]remy> lekker ben jij
[10:37] <[]lch[]remy> sandmans niet goed?
[10:38] <[]lch[]remy> soort pilkara online gooien = veel werk

For the non dutch amongst you: learn dutch :P

But the bottom line is, Acers wanted pilkara, and i wanted something to do. So i downloaded the pilkara open source, played around a bit with the ticker scripts and uploaded it.

The result is:

http://pilkara.lch-hq.org

Have fun with it

Some points:

- The layout will change in the coming time to look like []LCH[] style
- The first day or two, the history is all wrong because of my testing :-)
- If you have suggestions/complaints, mail me at [email protected]. Do not expect a reply tho, if i like it, you will see it back

[Remy]

Update !

I have contacted the original coder of Pilkara and he gave official permission to use the source code as i see fit, not documented, as long as i make my version publicly available to the public (by means of download).

I will happily comply with this condition. Once i have completely reorganised the remake, I will make the new version publicly available.

So, this makes every discussion useless hereafter, thats why i remove the first thread.

[xtothez]

[Ace]

(second try ) great work Remy thx

[Phil^]

since the licensing is being complied with, and source is available - good job.

[kaos]

Good work
few notes:
could you use the old up/down/stay images ? Yours don't really look good imho
another thing i wanted to do long time ago (and while you'r at it, its a simple change anyways) is to move the score changes from the <img> alt attribute to the title attribute (either of the img or better the td ... thats where i would belong), because gecko based browsers don't show the alt tag on hover (like ie does ...)
another thing would be color coding the races of the planets (like you did in the header already ... should be doable in the getColumnBla function [iirc] with a simple switch i think)

and tbh the only thing which i would regard as _good_ code (which i would actually only care to be released) at all in that package is the dumper code (i've actually written the displaying stuff in 2-3 days back then and it is really darn simple mostly ... the dumper took me a good amount of time to speed up to the current level)

[Remy]

the old images werent supplied in the source i think. thats why i didnt use them

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Remy

the old images werent supplied in the source i think. thats why i didnt use them

They were indeed not.

[Anonymous Hero]

What was the problem before? You are under no obligation to redistribute the code with the MPL. However if you do give the code out then any modifications to the original files must be MPL licensed.

I know it's against the spirit of the license, but you don't need to give out the code.

[kaos]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Hero

What was the problem before? You are under no obligation to redistribute the code with the MPL. However if you do give the code out then any modifications to the original files must be MPL licensed.

I know it's against the spirit of the license, but you don't need to give out the code.

thats not true.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
see 3.1 and 3.2
you probably misread 3.7 which just means that you can take any MPL licensed and include it in your closed souce program as long as you release back any changes in the MPL code which is much different to the (L)GPL where in that case you would have to release YOUR code as (L)GPL too (the only legal way to use LGPL software in closed source is to link to that code at runtime [and your code must work w/o that library too ... in theory at least ])

the reason i used the MPL is that it allows commercial use (in case jolt ever wanted to do some stats site again *g* ...) while not giving the freedom of a bsd style license where they wouldn't even need to release anything (which would definitly get abused by such companies [can you feel the love? :])

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Hero

What was the problem before? You are under no obligation to redistribute the code with the MPL. However if you do give the code out then any modifications to the original files must be MPL licensed.

I know it's against the spirit of the license, but you don't need to give out the code.

There was no problem apart from in his own head. I never demanded he do anything and I didnt attack him for not releasing the code. I just stated it would be nice from a community pov if his changes were released. Hie then decided to be a whiny twat, throw a hissy fit and tell himself we were werent appreciating him putting it up which took it down a licencing route which tbh probally wasnt really relevent and certainly wasnt needed

[Anonymous Hero]

Originally Posted by kaos

thats not true.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
see 3.1 and 3.2
you probably misread 3.7 which just means that you can take any MPL licensed and include it in your closed souce program as long as you release back any changes in the MPL code which is much different to the (L)GPL where in that case you would have to release YOUR code as (L)GPL too (the only legal way to use LGPL software in closed source is to link to that code at runtime [and your code must work w/o that library too ... in theory at least ])

the reason i used the MPL is that it allows commercial use (in case jolt ever wanted to do some stats site again *g* ...) while not giving the freedom of a bsd style license where they wouldn't even need to release anything (which would definitly get abused by such companies [can you feel the love? :])

From what I can see regarding 3.1/3.2:

If change the code and I distribute a binary then I have to make the source available (under the terms of the MPL). If I don't distribute a binary then I don't have to distribute the source. In this case the user isn't distributing a binary and isn't forced to give the source code along with it.

[kaos]

1.5. "Executable"
means Covered Code in any form other than Source Code.

i think one can hardly argue that the thing you see when browsing pilkara isn't 'any form other than Source Code' (well, i think that one actually has to be tested in court tho, but everything else wouldn't make sense for web stuff, where you usually don't distribute a real executable file)

[Anonymous Hero]

Browsing Pilkara gives the HTML output, and not the actual PHP code in another format (like the compiled output such as an executable).

A while ago there was discussion about closing the "web-loophole" on GPL2 licensed scripts with GPL3. There are licenses such as the Affero General Public License make sure that scripts on webservers can be downloaded by anyone who wants to see the code.

Anyway, if you can find example cases online of people using the MPL to get the source code in similar situations to these - please point me to them.

...

It is in the best interests that whoever works on it does release their source code though. If the original Pilkara code wasn't available to download then Remy would've had to create everything needed from scratch.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by wakey

There was no problem apart from in his own head. I never demanded he do anything and I didnt attack him for not releasing the code. I just stated it would be nice from a community pov if his changes were released. Hie then decided to be a whiny twat, throw a hissy fit and tell himself we were werent appreciating him putting it up which took it down a licencing route which tbh probally wasnt really relevent and certainly wasnt needed

let it go, why do you think Remy started a new thread?

thanks remy

[Remy]

For those interested: #pilkara is now my channel where ppl can talk about pilkara and it's development.