From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

In which way does Firetorrent bear similarity to the official BitTorrent client (μtorrent)?

Article provides no sources to show that this browser is significant[edit]

Per Wikipedia's notability guideline, we expect to see reliable sources that have commented on this browser. Keeping this article needs to be justified by more than the product's own web site. Please add sources if you know of any. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Three of the five references are from various other websites discussing the browser. I could find plenty more if needed. Since this browser is in "Alpha" stage it is likely to become even more "notable" in time. So I think we can now remove the notability flag from this page. - Jedakiah (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If Wyzo is important, we would expect it to have a lot of users, and that it would be commented on in print media or by web sites that maintain a professional staff such as Blogs are not usually considered to be reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think this is not notable or significant. The article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple reliable sources: [1] [2]. I am cancelling the PROD. --Kvng (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wyzo is primarily a company[edit]

Wyzo is a company that produces the Wyzo web browser. I feel the article should reflect that. And it seems that the biggest thing the company and Wyzo browser are known for is the Firetorrent extension. So I added some more details and references about it. That change was my first edit ever. Jedakiah (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This junk changed my homepage without asking[edit]

I hope that's all it did. It showed on limewire as an old video game. Complete bologna. Uninstalled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnutella Spam[edit]

Isn't this "product" notorious for Gnutella Spamming?

If you use your gnutella app, there will be a chance that you hit on something like "(your search terms) [wyzo].zip" or something.

Like I read on the other section of this talk, I have a hunch that this is either a rogue or a malware-bundled "product". Akira Tomosuke (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wyzo 3.0.1[edit]

Wyzo 3.0.1 was just introduced, so the article should be updated accordingly. Computerwiz908 | Talk 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i agree, the article should be updated from it's latest release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexq1350 (talkcontribs) 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Software License and Source Code - (L)GPL Violation?[edit]

The article says that Wyzo has a proprietary license. The current EULA on the Wyzo website seems to corroborate this. However, it is well-known (and evident through use of the product or inspection of screenshots) that Wyzo makes extensive use of Firefox 3 code; in other words, the authors of this product have used Firefox as their code base, applied a number of modifications to that code, and implemented major features as extensions (which rely on Firefox's XUL-based extension system). They have subsequently released and distributed the product, apparently under a proprietary license. I don't think any of the available licenses (MPL, GPL, LGPL) permit this sort of re-distribution.

Wyzo's parent company (RadicalSoft) provides an EULA for the browser that mentions the availability of source code. However, it is dated April 2008, so we can assume it was an earlier version. On Wyzo's own website, the community page claims to offer source code -- unfortunately, the ZIP archive linked to does not exist, and their WebSVN installation rarely works (it has only loaded for me once, and didn't stay working long enough for me to find out when it was last updated). They have also ignored user posts on their support forum that ask about this issue.

The above information was gathered from some light googling, not hours of exhaustive research (/disclaimer). I couldn't find anything resembling a statement from Wyzo on this topic. I think the licensing situation here is ambiguous at best. They are clearly not providing source code at the moment, and their EULA is proprietary, but the company itself hasn't provided any statements about the issue. I suspect that they meant to release their Firefox extensions under a proprietary license, while providing the code for the main browser part (which they wouldn't make changes to) -- until a statement is issued by Wyzo or RadicalSoft, I'm inclined to think this currently constitutes a license violation. maniacmusician (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I managed to get the WebSVN to load one more looks as though it hasn't been updated even once; the initial import was the vanilla Firefox source, and it was done on 2007-03-30 (March 30, 2007). The current Wyzo is clearly using a newer version of Firefox, so it can be concluded that they are not even attempting to provide current source code which they are under obligation to release according to Firefox's licensing terms. maniacmusician (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)