This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AMule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
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)
> Finally, a question which is outside the more specific inquiry above.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Xaignar (
talk •
contribs).
> 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.
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)
"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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do we have to say "According to the aMule official FAQ"? -- Mortense ( talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AMule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
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)
> Finally, a question which is outside the more specific inquiry above.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Xaignar (
talk •
contribs).
> 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.
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)
"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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do we have to say "According to the aMule official FAQ"? -- Mortense ( talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)