Talk:XMule/Archive 1

Archive 1

Boys and girls, grow up and please do your rants and flamewars somewhere else. Wikipedia definitely isn't the place for it. Stick to facts that are of interest for a normal reader and cut the propaganda. And this is adressed to both sides. Deleted:

xMule has since suffered from a negative publicity campaign by aMule users, who post exagerrated negative comments on software review sites such as GnomeFiles [1] and Zeropaid [2] while promoting aMule, even going so far as to suggest that the xMule project has stopped [3], [4], [5], etc. To be fair, the 'xMule is dead' statements might be caused by the fact that its main developer states that every 4 or 5 months, like this [6], [7], [8], [9] etc.

The goal for the current xMule mantainer and developer is however to close xMule source and remove the GPL license to a closed-source one. He states that forks are a bad practice encouraged by GPL and so GPL is a viral license that must never be used ([10] (3.6 - conclusion), [11], [12], [13], [14], and many others).

---

NOTE! GAH!!! AMULE PROPAGANDA!! Straight from the xMule maintainer's mouth: I wish to keep xMule 100% open source! I want to discourage hostile forks. The GPL is *totally* inadequate for this purpose, thus I must rewrite xMule completely and relicense it under a more developer-centric license, such as the Qt License, Mozilla PL, PHP License, etc. If you claim Mozilla is closed source, then you are insane imho.

---

A little searching turned up this gem:

12:49:00 <bothie> IIRC you wanted to separate core & GUI - am I correct?

[...]

12:49:08 <Un-Thesis> yes

12:49:33 <bothie> What is the state of each of both? Are they working?

12:49:51 <bothie> Or is only one of it working?

[...]

12:50:40 <Un-Thesis> if you wanted a specific answer, should have asked a specific question

12:50:44 <bothie> I didn't want to get that so elaborately...

[...]

12:51:29 <Un-Thesis> don't hold your breath for 2.0

12:52:32 <bothie> Why don't you release what you have already?

[...]

12:52:48 <Un-Thesis> it is going to be PROPRIETARY

12:52:50 <Un-Thesis> PROPRIETARY

12:53:03 <Un-Thesis> only contributors to my cause will get access to it

12:53:07 <Un-Thesis> code contributors get betas

12:53:16 <Un-Thesis> ppl who pay get the releases

12:53:24 <Un-Thesis> ppl who pay slightly more also get the betas

Another quote, from the xMule maintainer's mouth. So which are we supposed to believe?

--------

Asshole, look. Madcat (Alo Sarv) had made bothie (whom i had never met) an administrator of the SourceForge xMule project and had TOTALLY removed me from the project. This particular piece of correspondence was written *in*private* to bothie who then subsequently made it public. The ideas from this were specifically coined by Madcat who then used it against me less than a WEEK after this statement was made in a vicious public relations campaign that continues to this day (just see this post). The only developers at this time were myself (founder), Madcat, and Kry. Madcat's project failed, Kry went on to take over aMule.

Any questions?

Background?

Hmmmm sounds complicated, does anyone know exactly what's going on? We can add information that is NPOV. What caused the fork, and lMule's website being taken over? Sounds like lots happened.

I am here since I am still debating moving towards GNU/Linux and am researching software I'd need to replace (eMule) with GNU/Linux versions. --ShaunMacPherson 11:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Relevant message deleted

Ted Smith is now the sole maintainer of xMule. I think that what he says basically _represents_ xMule. In addition to that, the letter supplied gives a brief, untold history of xMule. True, his letter is not quite Neutral POV, but something is better than nothing.

I removed the letter and references, to end this useless ranting between Ted and you. Kry 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)