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.
In those situations, could someone easily just fork the project, offer builds, and now their version of the project is ideal? If it's easy to do that then it seems like a good ideal. If it is difficult to do then their right it is an 'issue'.
One to add: NanoKVM is definitely fake FOSS. It dials home to download a serialized, opaque library. NanoKVM: The S stands for Securityhttps://youtu.be/plJGZQ35Q6I
Many people also seem to think Atlassian Jira and Confluence are OSS when they're absolutely not.
They also used to offer source downloads to paying customers, but never claimed to be open source, because the licence they gave to customers to access that source did not allow for distribution. (It was meant for auditing, and help in building extensions, I think)
F-Droid, the FOSS-centric alternative app store for Android, provides similar information for each app. F-Droid goes a bit farther on things mobile users care about, like calling out if an app sends telemetry or requires a paid subscription. I like that this Is it really FOSS? project 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.
F-Droid goes way off the deep end on other issues, though. For instance, most RSS readers get the "non-free network services" warning because you can use them to follow RSS feeds on any web site, including ones whose software isn't open-source.
Do you have an example? Because of the 10 RSS reader I just checked only a couple have that warning. It's also not about being able to add non free sites (if so all browser would have that warning) but that they come by default with them.
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.
> ProtonMail, who apparently offer a FOSS mail client. They never presumed to offer mail server software
The website justifiably cites this website marketing copy as misleading: "All Proton services are open source and independently audited for security." https://proton.me/mail If that's supposed to only apply to the mail client (which isn't specifically mentioned on that page), it's incredibly unclear.
Indeed. Glad it actually cares more Free aspect than the OS aspect. It's important to speak truth to power - VCs are abusing open source as distribution channel and then doing a rugpull, and those who care about FOSS need to fight back in these ways.
The real test of "freedom" isn't just the license but whether users can realistically deploy modified versions in production without prohibitive technical or legal barriers.
I got banned permanently from this server (with no explanation of why). However, it look like it is also on Codeberg, which I am not banned from (although many of the links are incorrect when viewed on Codeberg (at least if JavaScripts are disabled), it still works).
I think these articles are good, but I do have some other comments.
For some programs, there is the possibility that some parts can potentially work without non-FOSS but is difficult to separate. (This can also be a different problem in case you only want one part of the program.)
A program can also be Free but "trapped", in case it requires proprietary compilers to compile it (although it is often possible to work around this; sometimes easily and sometimes more difficult).
For some games that have non-FOSS parts, there is also the issue of if the non-FOSS parts can execute arbitrary code or otherwise do things outside of the game itself, that is not necessarily desirable (e.g. a Game Boy Advance emulator might be FOSS, although the programs it emulates might or might not be FOSS, but either way do not affect the rest of the computer nor the internet and other stuff like that); and, also the consideration of whether the software can be used without the non-FOSS parts (if you can replace them; e.g. a FOSS game engine might be made as a clone of a non-FOSS game engine that can use the original game files but you can also make your own fully FOSS games using it too).
There is also some that may require non-FOSS to access, even if the software itself is FOSS. Proprietary (or overly complicated, even if FOSS) communication channels are also not mentioned (although another comment on here does mention it), and I think it probably is a concern (not one that necessarily makes the project itself to be not FOSS, but still might be worth mentioning), even if it does not make the program itself to be not FOSS, it can make it difficult to contribute or to use it.
Being FOSS does not necessarily mean that you intend to run the program on your computer; you might only want to view the code, or modify it before running it, or use your own program (or a different FOSS program) as a substitute.
Programs can be "open core" but the non-FOSS part is still clearly distinct from it (which is the case for SQLite). (In the case of SQLite, they also mention the non-FOSS test suite; they are not needed to run the program, but it may make it difficult to make your own changes and then test it. However, some programs do not have a real test suite at all, anyways.)
Readit News
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...
Many people also seem to think Atlassian Jira and Confluence are OSS when they're absolutely not.
I wonder if it ever happened. I did withhold my purchase back then just because I'd rather wait for open source than buy some device I cannot trust.
Who is "they"? NanoKVM or the reviewer?
There appears to be a follow-up comparison video here: https://youtu.be/CsfB_Avi2-4
https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Anti-Features/#NonFreeNet
"apps that promote or depend entirely on a proprietary network service."
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.
The website justifiably cites this website marketing copy as misleading: "All Proton services are open source and independently audited for security." https://proton.me/mail If that's supposed to only apply to the mail client (which isn't specifically mentioned on that page), it's incredibly unclear.
https://isitreallyfoss.com/about/categorisation/
[1] https://codeberg.org/danb/isitreallyfoss/issues
I think these articles are good, but I do have some other comments.
For some programs, there is the possibility that some parts can potentially work without non-FOSS but is difficult to separate. (This can also be a different problem in case you only want one part of the program.)
A program can also be Free but "trapped", in case it requires proprietary compilers to compile it (although it is often possible to work around this; sometimes easily and sometimes more difficult).
For some games that have non-FOSS parts, there is also the issue of if the non-FOSS parts can execute arbitrary code or otherwise do things outside of the game itself, that is not necessarily desirable (e.g. a Game Boy Advance emulator might be FOSS, although the programs it emulates might or might not be FOSS, but either way do not affect the rest of the computer nor the internet and other stuff like that); and, also the consideration of whether the software can be used without the non-FOSS parts (if you can replace them; e.g. a FOSS game engine might be made as a clone of a non-FOSS game engine that can use the original game files but you can also make your own fully FOSS games using it too).
There is also some that may require non-FOSS to access, even if the software itself is FOSS. Proprietary (or overly complicated, even if FOSS) communication channels are also not mentioned (although another comment on here does mention it), and I think it probably is a concern (not one that necessarily makes the project itself to be not FOSS, but still might be worth mentioning), even if it does not make the program itself to be not FOSS, it can make it difficult to contribute or to use it.
Being FOSS does not necessarily mean that you intend to run the program on your computer; you might only want to view the code, or modify it before running it, or use your own program (or a different FOSS program) as a substitute.
Programs can be "open core" but the non-FOSS part is still clearly distinct from it (which is the case for SQLite). (In the case of SQLite, they also mention the non-FOSS test suite; they are not needed to run the program, but it may make it difficult to make your own changes and then test it. However, some programs do not have a real test suite at all, anyways.)