3 ms·
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
by einpoklum 1y ago
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.
- 1970-01-01 1y agoYou missed how there are five possible answers for a binary yes/no question. The site is confusing by design. https://isitreallyfoss.com/about/categorisation/ https://isitreallyfoss.com/about/categorisation/
- re 1y ago> 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 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.