A web page of these characteristics cannot be FLOSS if it is not self-hosted, which in the case of AlternativeTo would be absurd.
In web services it is often also irrelevant if it is FOSS or not, in these cases it is more important who publishes it and the commercial interests behind it or not. It is not the same if it is done by an individual, a community or a large multinational, as is the case for example with GitHub, owned by Microsoft.
That is a good point. The group behind such a project is much more important. Could you elaborate a bit on why these web services cannot be open-source, though? What would be different if the owners just open-sourced their code? I am afraid I do not know enough to understand the reasons behind it.
Naturally the page format can be perfectly OpenSource, there are many FOSS applications to create a web page, there are even forks from Wikipedia. But the page as such is one thing and the content is another, apart from the page it must also be hosted on a server, not everyone has a server at home to be able to host a voluminous page and allow a large number of visitors on a daily basis.
F(L)OSS is great for apps, but when you like to build a stable online service not so. As with the Wikipedia, you can fork the page, but you have to put the contents and you have to host it in a stable server (and also pay it).
Apart from AlternativeTO, one of my favorite page is this one, with online and ofline apps (freeware), build by two brothers electricians in their spare time and own money, but with an outstanding quality, good and fast user support and a excellent TOS and privacy (anónimous, no tracksn o ads, no costs, no registring and do what you want with it)
https://www.ssuitesoft.com/categories/webapps.htm
Not FLOSS but equivalent
A web page of these characteristics cannot be FLOSS if it is not self-hosted, which in the case of AlternativeTo would be absurd. In web services it is often also irrelevant if it is FOSS or not, in these cases it is more important who publishes it and the commercial interests behind it or not. It is not the same if it is done by an individual, a community or a large multinational, as is the case for example with GitHub, owned by Microsoft.
That is a good point. The group behind such a project is much more important. Could you elaborate a bit on why these web services cannot be open-source, though? What would be different if the owners just open-sourced their code? I am afraid I do not know enough to understand the reasons behind it.
Naturally the page format can be perfectly OpenSource, there are many FOSS applications to create a web page, there are even forks from Wikipedia. But the page as such is one thing and the content is another, apart from the page it must also be hosted on a server, not everyone has a server at home to be able to host a voluminous page and allow a large number of visitors on a daily basis. F(L)OSS is great for apps, but when you like to build a stable online service not so. As with the Wikipedia, you can fork the page, but you have to put the contents and you have to host it in a stable server (and also pay it). Apart from AlternativeTO, one of my favorite page is this one, with online and ofline apps (freeware), build by two brothers electricians in their spare time and own money, but with an outstanding quality, good and fast user support and a excellent TOS and privacy (anónimous, no tracksn o ads, no costs, no registring and do what you want with it) https://www.ssuitesoft.com/categories/webapps.htm Not FLOSS but equivalent
Why? I make my living as a Site Reliability Engineer and I mostly use FOSS for various reasons.