Yes it is - and there is a 'semi' logical reason why.
There has been ongoing comparisons of Fedora and Korora, and how they are the 'same'.
Yes - they are,.. yet they are not. Korora is it's own fork - and has to be treated as such. It's not a fail - it's a learn why it didn't and now - how to clean up what was done.
It is not a fork, fork is a specific term for a specific type of code diversion. Example: LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, once forked they don't come back together. Dragonfly is forked from FreeBSD, they are completely unrelated systems today. Mac OSX is also a fork of FreeBSD. Once forked, two systems are no longer related, their paths diverge (hence the term.)
Korora is a downstream OS built from Fedora. Each release of Korora comes from one of Fedora. They are not forked, but actively tied. A fork would be far worse. These two actively track changes from one to the other.
But that doesn't change the fact that Korora is a totally different OS that is not Fedora. Being "based on" Fedora doesn't make it Fedora. Just like how Mint is not Ubuntu is not Debian, yet each is based on the one before. Typically a Fedora package will run on Korora, but no guarantees.