The negative reactions seem to center on the phrasing of the title -- "an open source alternative to Git". This seems to imply that Fossil is open source where

The negative reactions seem to center on the phrasing of the title -- "an open source alternative to Git". This seems to imply that Fossil is open source where git is not, which is clearly incorrect. There's no term for "git + issue tracker + wiki + pull request manager + web presence + access controls + organizational tools" that GitHub represents at the moment. Fossil checks a couple more boxes in that list than Git does, and represents an open-source alternative to GitHub in that sense. That's hard to express in the title, but the title as it stands is misleading at best. "Fossil - a SQL database based alternative to Git" would be more accurate, but a little less sexy.