One to add: NanoKVM is definitely fake FOSS. It dials home to download a serialized, opaque library. NanoKVM: The S stands for Security https://youtu.be/plJGZQ35Q6I

Many people also seem to think Atlassian Jira and Confluence are OSS when they're absolutely not.

You can add a new project to the website by creating an issue [1].

[1] https://codeberg.org/danb/isitreallyfoss/issues

Now add an "open source" LLM.

Signal I suppose is open source, but doesn't it contain closed source Google binary blobs? It also routes through closed source notification libraries

I think the definition of FOSS used here is tendentious: some of these projects (which I have no particular attachment to) are marked as "not FOSS" or "issues exist" because they have components that are disconnected from the basic nature of free and open source software itself.

A recurring one here seems to be that proprietary builds somehow make a project not FOSS. But this is how it's always worked: Red Hat doesn't sell FOSS source, they sell a subscription to a distribution (RHEL) that includes managed, maintained builds. That distribution is in turn restricted[1], while the source behind it remains free.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the definition of FOSS should be stronger, and should include some kind of binary freedom, lack of trademark restrictions, etc. But that's not how the term is conventionally applied, and glossing over that convention seems roughly as contentious as when companies try to split the baby and rewrite "open source" to include anti-competitive terms.

[1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/red-hat-enterprise-linux...

Some entries are at best confusing, and at worst misinforming.

The common case is considering projects which have one element that is FOSS and another that isn't. For example: ProtonMail, who apparently offer a FOSS mail client. They never presumed to offer mail server software; and FOSS mail server software is available. So a button calling them out for not being really FOSS kind of misses the mark. You don't see an entry like that for, say, GMail - so if Proton did not provide a client at all, they would have faired better.

Another specific case is that of Signal. The client and server are FOSS, but they're designed for no federation, so you can't (?) use a modified Signal client with the vanilla clients, and you definitely can't add a server to the network. This effectively prevents modified versions of Signal from being usable. So, is it really FOSS? The site's verdict is: Unqualified yes, Green button.

This project's source code is hosted on Codeberg, which runs on the FOSS forge Forgejo.

This is a big improvement over projects that are hosted on GitHub. For those, the license may be FOSS, but the spirit is not, because anyone that wants to contribute upstream is lured onto a proprietary platform.

The license and terms of service of a project's community communication channels are not listed under the concerns. (https://isitreallyfoss.com/concerns/) This is understandable: traditionally and strictly, the license is the only thing that matters.

I think this is not particularly impartial. Sentry is marked as "NOPE" even though it is basically open source (any commit older than two years is), yet projects that are open core forever are "issues exist" and "partially".

F-Droid, the FOSS-centric alternative app store for Android, provides similar information for each app. F-Droid goes a bit farther by also calling out if an app sends telemetry or requires a paid subscription. I like that this Is it really FOSS? project also examines a project's potential impact on the FOSS community by questioning whether it is VC-funded, requires a CLA, and other interesting characteristics like that.

My wife is Venezuelan, and when they think something smells they say Foss. It's a never ending source of amusing when I'm browsing hn. She will love this site.