[almaember]

You don't seem to see the difference between the letter and the spirit.

Sure, Tusky complies with the letter of the definition; that doesn't make it moral

This is what Stallman said:

> If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.

[jakelazaroff]

Tusky complies with the spirit of the definition. More accurately, its list of blocked servers is entirely unrelated to whether or not it's free software. Again, the FSF explicitly says of freedom 0:

> This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.

What part of your quote does Tusky violate? It's GPL3. Even if you consider that block list a malicious feature (I don't), you are allowed to take it out and distribute a "corrected" version.