is FrostWire "Free Software"? GPL'd or not...

[earthpigg]

oh, wikipedia, how i love and hate thee?

the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrostWire

the claim in question:

Released under the GNU General Public License, FrostWire is free software.

however, as i point out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FrostWire#Is_FrostWire_.2Areally.2A_Free_Soft ware.3F_Does_it_meet_the_Open_Source_Initiative_De finition.3F):


Is FrostWire *really* Free Software? Does it meet the Open Source Initiative Definition?

When you first install and start FrostWire, you must agree that you will "not use it for copyright infringement".

Freedom Zero of the Four Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software#Definition ):


Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

copyright infringement is a purpose.

and the 6th part of the Open Source Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition ):


6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

whatever your opinion on the matter, copyright infringement clearly qualifies as 'a field of endeavor.'


yet, the first paragraph of this article states the following: "Released under the GNU General Public License, FrostWire is free software."

it takes more than claiming to be released under the GPL for a piece of software to be Free Software.

and to the wikipedia 'people of influence': does it count as original research just because i haven't published an article or editorial on some trash website yet, or should i do that and then change the article? i can do so if needed, it isn't hard. nor is it hard to establish a source as 'credible'... the article currently cites lifehacker.com as a reliable source, for example.


is my logic sound, or have i missed something?

[BuffaloX]

I'm not sure any purpose include illegal purposes.
A license isn't above the law.

But such matters should not be necessary to state in any EULA.
It would be like an auto dealer requiring customers to sign an agreement not to make traffic violations. Because if they didn't, they could face lawsuits that could destroy them.

I don't think neither Wikipedia nor Frostwaire nor GPL are to blame, but rather RIAA and how they threaten and sue everyone right and left, and they have the power of money and heavily lobbying the law makers.

One copy is as bad as a thousand thefts. They actually have succeeded in making the law see it that way.

Requiring acceptance of a limitation made by law, is probably not a limitation of the license in a legal sense IMO.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

To be fair, if it bothered you that much you could just take Frostwire, rename it or make a few other trivial changes, and re-release it under the GPL, and take the part out of the agreement about violating copyright law.

[FuturePilot]

I'm not sure any purpose include illegal purposes.


It says "any purpose". That means any possible purpose you could think of and even purposes you can't think of. It doesn't say "any purpose except illegal ones" or "only legal purposes"

[pwnst*r]

It's wikipedia - hardly the source of sources. Email the devs.

[cariboo]

The section you are talking about is part of the EULA, not the gpl license. It states:


This software is not designed, nor does it intend to encourage or allow for the distribution of copyrighted, trademarked, patented, or other
protected data, for which the individual sharing the data does not own the rights to distribute.

it then goes on to say that they aren't liable for anything bad that you do. This really has nothing to do with the software license.

It is simple enough to extract the EULA from the .deb to see for yourself.