This is pearl clutching. This feels like a massive overreaction. If you don't want to use it because it's not open source, that's fine, but you're spreading a lot of snarky FUD about the creators.
They are not making excuses, they stated clearly why open sourcing it is tangential to this problem at best, and they're not the only user to call out the hijacking of the thread. They have been quite clear about why they keep it closed source, so I don't know why you're making it sound like they are lying to their users.
Your rant about audits has little to do with the article too. Telling everyone we're going to get rug pulled is exactly the kind of performative FUD that is meant to get a reaction more than anything.
Speaking for myself, I'm going to keep using it, because nothing has come close to the convenience and performance. Would love an open source alternative to prove me wrong, but I haven't seen it.
That's your opinion. I respect your choices and your opinions. I speak for myself. This is the first time I've seen this company's CEO post somewhere. I really couldn't trust this software less.
To be fair, when someone comes up with excuses for not making something open source, it comes off as dishonest. Be honest. Say that you want to keep it closed to keep control and make money. There's no need to say otherwise. I do the same. I keep code private to make money. I don't say more than that.
You'll see a plethora of such apps made with LLMs. People will write something custom to meet their own needs and to have the features they need.
If you look at my GitHub profile[1] you'll see that the majority of my time is spent on open source. But my priority is open sourcing the tools and libraries I would want if I were building an alternative to Obsidian (Defuddle, JSON Canvas, Web Clipper, Importer, Flexoki, etc) because I believe all software is ephemeral and that files matter more than apps[2].
Obsidian is a free app made by seven people. If we were purely financially-motivated there are many levers we could have pulled, e.g. adding feature gates, not allowing alternatives to our paid services into the official directory, etc. But as I wrote in the tweet linked above, I have spent decades making open source projects and those have never paid the bills. So yes, there is some financial motivation behind that decision.
> when someone comes up with excuses for not making something open source
This is a wild take even coming from HN. Nobody needs an excuse to not make something open source.
This sort of entitlement does, and has done, far more damage to the OSS movement than anyone's "excuses" for not open sourcing their code. Full stop.
You can absolutely prefer open source software and choose not to trust closed-source apps. That’s all fair. But treating closed source itself as evidence of deception or impending betrayal is exactly the kind of ideological purity test that makes these conversations exhausting.
"Oh, please, say you want to keep it closed source because you're afraid you'll lose money and control."
That's not good enough for open source zealots. That's when you end up being the headliner in an endless flood of blog posts and detailing comments telling everyone you're a 'proprietary evil man'.
It's open source or nothing. And how dare you make money.
This is pearl clutching. This feels like a massive overreaction. If you don't want to use it because it's not open source, that's fine, but you're spreading a lot of snarky FUD about the creators.
They are not making excuses, they stated clearly why open sourcing it is tangential to this problem at best, and they're not the only user to call out the hijacking of the thread. They have been quite clear about why they keep it closed source, so I don't know why you're making it sound like they are lying to their users.
Your rant about audits has little to do with the article too. Telling everyone we're going to get rug pulled is exactly the kind of performative FUD that is meant to get a reaction more than anything.
Speaking for myself, I'm going to keep using it, because nothing has come close to the convenience and performance. Would love an open source alternative to prove me wrong, but I haven't seen it.
That's your opinion. I respect your choices and your opinions. I speak for myself. This is the first time I've seen this company's CEO post somewhere. I really couldn't trust this software less.
To be fair, when someone comes up with excuses for not making something open source, it comes off as dishonest. Be honest. Say that you want to keep it closed to keep control and make money. There's no need to say otherwise. I do the same. I keep code private to make money. I don't say more than that.
You'll see a plethora of such apps made with LLMs. People will write something custom to meet their own needs and to have the features they need.
Consider a quick search. I have answered this question many times over the years, e.g. https://x.com/kepano/status/1701359669791670416
If you look at my GitHub profile[1] you'll see that the majority of my time is spent on open source. But my priority is open sourcing the tools and libraries I would want if I were building an alternative to Obsidian (Defuddle, JSON Canvas, Web Clipper, Importer, Flexoki, etc) because I believe all software is ephemeral and that files matter more than apps[2].
Obsidian is a free app made by seven people. If we were purely financially-motivated there are many levers we could have pulled, e.g. adding feature gates, not allowing alternatives to our paid services into the official directory, etc. But as I wrote in the tweet linked above, I have spent decades making open source projects and those have never paid the bills. So yes, there is some financial motivation behind that decision.
[1]: https://github.com/kepano
[2]: https://stephango.com/file-over-app
1 reply →
> when someone comes up with excuses for not making something open source
This is a wild take even coming from HN. Nobody needs an excuse to not make something open source.
This sort of entitlement does, and has done, far more damage to the OSS movement than anyone's "excuses" for not open sourcing their code. Full stop.
You can absolutely prefer open source software and choose not to trust closed-source apps. That’s all fair. But treating closed source itself as evidence of deception or impending betrayal is exactly the kind of ideological purity test that makes these conversations exhausting.
1 reply →
"Oh, please, say you want to keep it closed source because you're afraid you'll lose money and control."
That's not good enough for open source zealots. That's when you end up being the headliner in an endless flood of blog posts and detailing comments telling everyone you're a 'proprietary evil man'. It's open source or nothing. And how dare you make money.