Talk:aMule

GPL

If aMule is a fork of xMule, which is a fork of lMule, which is a fork of eMule, why does the source only credit the aMule and eMule projects? Just wondering. AlistairMcMillan 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Simply because neither of those added any copyright notices of their own (xMule has later added them), and we arn't required to add copyright notices for them, only retain those that are already there.

You can verify this by downloading xMule v1.5.6 which was where the code-base was forked:

http://mirror.optusnet.com.au/sourceforge/x/xm/xmule/

This is my question to the FSF about the same and the answer:

> Finally, a question which is outside the more specific inquiry above.
> We have at both the aMule website, wiki, changelog and other places
> specified that aMule is a fork of xMule. Yet the xMule dev has many
> times made the claim that we "hide the fact" that aMule is a fork of
> xMule. What sort of notice and/or documentation would you consider
> appropriate for ensuring that this linage is readily available for
> everyone to see?

So long as you retain any copyright notices from xMule that still apply,
you need not do anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xaignar (talk • contribs).

This is how one unwary programmer (myself) got bitfucked by the GPL. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 17:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why were you coding on a GPL project in the first place then? You know forks happen on GPL code, and, as it was not your code anyway, and they kept the original copyright lines, state everywhere aMule is a xMule fork (which is a fork of lmule, which is a fork of eMule...), etcetera, so I don't see how you were "bitfucked". Kry 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

removed the line about hostile fork from that article since this is old news. maybe it could be added to xmule because there they~/he care much more for it. :Leuk he 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tech specs

Does aMule have support for Kadmilia like eMule does? How closely does aMule follow eMule's development cycle? Is there any reason why this project couldn't be a part of eMule? --ShaunMacPherson 11:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• for kademlia, now it has (since 2.1.0 at my nolege).
• Thers a guy in amule groupe that he is dadicated in copying emule code(from what i understoud).Like usually in freeware, they copy each other like hell.

Well you understood bad. There's a guy in amule which also works in eMule, that's why they share code, ideas, and implementations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.165.61.244 (talk • contribs).

• i guess is emule fault if amule exist,if they had ported to other platform, i think that amule peopol whould have been in emule.

--Pixel ;-) 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

amule emule relation.

"Mule is closely tied to eMule Project as they share code and coders. Like eMule, aMule is free software released under the GNU General Public License." There is little evidence of sharing coders. They share code: this is a result of being gpl code. They share coders? Emule coders are largely anonymous. Most of the changelog lines contain a "." as name of the author. There are 2 verifyable facts:

• emule and amule are sharing code.
• emule is not hostile to amule since it links from the links section (it is exclusively linked ed2k client form there)

Leuk he 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deal, but... --213.216.199.2 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I prefer to use "their" references not to use myself since it can be ambiguous what it refers to, specailly after some edits. But i leave it this way. Now soemone needs to add info to get it out of the stub catagory... (why not use a account instead of an ip that has been abused in the past, it is free, and does not require email verification?) :Leuk he 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it was more ambiguous couple edits back, but sure we can continue to pursue our noble cause. :-) IP instead of an account, why?:

• Digital me under construction/perfectionism [ATM no serious email/homepage/comp/OS(Win32=>*nix) to constitute a Wiki-user page] --213.216.199.2 13:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

your ip user page contains "the account is blocked for 48 h for persistent refusal to provide verification of his massive edits and removal of wikipedia tags." makes it harder to take you serious. That is why. :Leuk he 10:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me back in 2005. --213.216.199.2 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the ad-hominem on me about "claiming". It's well known, along with the fact I'm a couple of times in the eMule changelog, that I share close comunication with the eMule devs, and contribute to the project. While my status is fuzzy and unoficial (and so I don't care about the "shares coders" being or not on the page), aMule does, in fact, share me with eMule. Little hints are here and there. Notice my group on eMule board for one. Notice also how I sometimes refer to things or reply to information that's way beyond my official scope. If you remember [1] and SS's post there, you'll understand what I mean. Again, is not that I care about the line, but avoid the ad-hominem. If you don't know about something, don't assume it's not true, because that's the worst form of O.R. - Kry 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

edited my first talk. I do not want it to sound as a personal..... :Leuk he 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

line. Like eMule, aMule is free software released under the GNU General Public License. .

Too many edits, made a wrong edit myself so i propose to come up with a good one here and then past it to the article... :Leuk he 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

aMule screenshot

We should include a screenshot of the current version of aMule AND it must show characteristic aMule features such as GeoIP. Using any screenshot of aMule should not be acceptable. VShaka (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page. Since I see no evidence of this, and the fact that the article does not cite a single source, I am reassessing it to Stub-class. decltype (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Amule Unmaintained

Why Amule is Unmaintained for Wikipedia (not updated since september 2011) and Emule is still active? (The last version was released April 2010)? 79.47.47.239 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Implied by sources?

Do we have to say "According to the aMule official FAQ"? --Mortense (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)