Comment by himata4113
8 hours ago
This made me realize that obsidian is *not* opensource, but in a way obsidian made me feel like it was opensource. Obviously now that I researched it, it is quite obvious that it is not, but still it 'feels' like it should be opensource.
The data is open and stored in markdown format. Plugins are open source. The core product is not open source, but it's also just an electron app. I've always viewed Obsidian as the inverse of an open core product.
I see it as “open data”. Despite not being open source at its core, it apparently tries to do nothing to lock you in by holding your data in a manner you can't easily access and interpret by other means.
[caveat: it has been on my “to play with” list for a long time, but I haven't yet, so I may not know enough for my thoughts to be relevant!]
I don't really mind this way of doing it since I know that my data is "safe". I can at any time just grab my vault and open it in any editor. I can write my own editor. I can import the data into most other tools. It's when the data isn't open that I tend to avoid the product.
Exactly this. Conversely, most open source apps on android might as well be closed source with regards to your practical ability to export your data unless you use a ROM that gives you some form of root access (such as adb root).
> I've always viewed Obsidian as the inverse of an open core product.
I'd like to hereby propose the "open shell" development model.
We don’t need a special term for interoperable.
The licence method we went with for AS Notes (https://www.asnotes.io - a wikilinks and markdown based notes / docs / blog extension for VS code) was to make the client (extension) fully opensource with a public / private cryptographic licence key model, with a couple of pro gated features. I think an opensource product is very important for a notes product, where the implications of loosing access to a tool are huge for users that invest a lot of time in a knowledge base.
I don't think that was my impression, but their API is pretty open for creating plugins. In support of the Obsidian model, its a dedicated engineering team, a free tool, notes are stored as .md and not something proprietary, and if you want you can pay them for their sync tool which I find both pretty reasonable and a nice way to support their efforts. Also they keep on improving the product in interesting ways, the new plugin marketplace with all of its verification policies is really nicely done, aspirational even.
But in any case, this is also a nice project, but I guess I'm also an Obsidian evangelist.
To be fair, Obsidian is an Electron app with no obfuscation, so it's pretty easy to get its code. I think I even remember the official Obsidian team telling people to do that on their support forum if they distrusted the app.
Which really begs the question: why not have it open-source at that point? Obsidian isn't making money from things hidden in the code, but rather their Sync service.
Might as well open-source it (and perhaps get more people helping with the development), keep the Sync service, and stem competitor projects like these in the bud.
"Open source" is not same as "source available".
"Source available": you can look at source code, maybe run a modified version internally.
"Open source": you can integrate it into your own software, republish, etc.
I suspect it's mostly about setting the expectation. They don't want to give up the control, they don't make it "free" (although it virtually is). Both are possible with open source but it would need a lot of explanation. Being closed makes it more natural.
Because then someone might fork it into a new product with their own sync service.
8 replies →
Two-faced signalling:
- "We have nothing to hide";
- "We are willing to take you to court for taking advantage of our trust".
[dead]
That was the reason a few years ago I started this project.
It seems like software in AI-era should be distributed open source.
So that anyone could tweak it however he wants. Not though clunky plugins system.
> So that anyone could tweak it however he wants.
That was true before the "AI era" as well.
Well, yes.
Just now, any regular user can clone the repository and ask an LLM to tune it to his needs.
2 replies →
And the developers get compensated for their work how?
Not all software needs to be for-profit.
Simple utility stuff I believe should fit in this category. Things like a text editor.
The profit comes from elsewhere, larger more complex systems.
Of course someone can TRY to profit off a text editor, but unless it solves complex enough problems (like a full blown IDE, but even then...).
The issue is there is intense demand for it, and ALSO easy supply. If someone attempts a profit driving rugpull, another will pop up in it's place.
I am still using Dendron because it meets my needs, but I'm always half tempted to replace it, and I'm fairly confident I could come up with something that meets my own needs in a day or two, and it would likely also be valuable to countless others. I just keep assuming that someone else will spend that day or two, and my pain points with Dendron are not that bad for me to spend the time.
6 replies →
Feels like a lot of apps that launch these days have an open source core app and a subscription based platform.
The subscription based platform with automatic cloud hosting and other quality of life features, whatever those are depending on the app.
Although there's a bunch of 100% open source projects and developers that get enough donations to make it their full time job just off of that. Not that it's the way to go if you want to get rich, but it's still very much a real thing.
Do you not sponsor projects that you get value out of?
I'm not saying you have to, but you asked how they get compensated and there's nothing stopping you from giving them money.
It's easy to forget that you get a lot of value out of something and not give back. If you end up getting a good paying job with your programming experience just buy your favorite projects "a beer" one a month, or once a year. God knows it's better spent there all the subscriptions we have like Netflix or Spotify. Cheaper too.
Also, if the projects are big enough you can usually get tax credit. If you work at a decently sized company they also usually do some charity matching.
5 replies →
How does Obsidian team get paid when the app is 100% free?
Now you have the answer.
That's yet to be decided :D
For the first time, I put a sponsorship button. Will see if it works.
Given the explosion of open source released projects I've seen over the past six months, I believe developers are getting compensated by the tool they are building for themselves creating real value for them.
I have a problem, I spend a few days building a tool that solves the problem, it works pretty well for me, and I release it to let others get value from it. They make tweaks to it, perhaps improve it, and I get value from those enhancements and bugfixes.
4 replies →
Are you asking how the open source ecosystem works in general?
In my experience, if the dev wishes to be compensated in dollars, they also sell a commercial license, cloud services, etc.
The same way they do now?
I don’t mean to be condescending but it feels like if this were an important question it would have halted OSS development decades ago.
2 replies →
get a job
Congratulations on making it tonthe front page. I think your app looks like a brilliant notes app implementation, and there's obviously demand. When I launched https://www.asnotes.io earlier this year (An extension that turns VS Code in to an Obsidian like PKMS) it made the number 4 spot. It's clearly something that people see as important and draws a lot of opinions. I hope your project does well.
Thanks for writing this!
That was a long journey for me :)
Good luck with your project as well.
> It seems like software in AI-era should be distributed open source.
That makes it easy for AI to be trained on it.
Yeah, also makes it easy for humans to train on it.
That's the point of open source, sharing the knowledge.
We'll all make the same shit over and over if noone shares.
But if we all share, then the only thing left to make is the unknown.
1 reply →
Good.
Why should it be opensource? Obsidian gives you complete control of your data, which it stores in an open standard.
Please explain to me why developers should act like monks who've taken a vow of poverty? The devs built something valuable, they should profit from it.
Wait, why are you mixing the two? You can have the software be under an open source license, yet still not be a monk that has taken a vow of poverty, it's not black and white.
AFAIK (as a long-term Obsidian daily user) Obsidian makes their money on various things attached to the editor/viewer itself, but don't actually charge for the editor/viewer. Even if they did, they could still slap a FOSS license on it, and continue charging for the parts they charge for today.
I'm guessing it's something else they're worried about though, rather than those things.
I agree with your very last part though, but I don't agree you cannot make it open source at the same time.
I'm mixing the two because I think developers should value their time and profit from the value they add. I want them to build viable businesses so they get wealthy from their efforts and can continue keeping useful products alive.
There's no value to their business to open sourcing the product. Open source risks losing customers to knock-off competitors or fragmenting their plugin ecoystem (which is a lot of Obsidians moat).
2 replies →
Reading their other comments, they are under the mistaken impression that every line of code written by a human should have a dollar sign attached to it.
No consideration given that lots of people contribute voluntarily to open-source projects or even release their projects/code for free because they enjoy writing code and engaging with the broader open source or free software community.
"Wait, why are you mixing the two? You can have the software be under an open source license, yet still not be a monk that has taken a vow of poverty, it's not black and white."
I don't think they are mixing the two. If they open sourced it, there would be immediate competition. Anyone could fork it and circumvent/compete with any premium features they might want to add to it in the future.
It's very hard to use this model to actually build a profitable company.
The only open source projects that can actually sustain themselves financially get handouts from large corporations (or are eventually purchased by them).
4 replies →
I think there is a special value in open source when it comes to a personal knowlege base. We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us, or made unaffordable. I made https://www.asnotes.io (basically obsidian with markdown and nested wikilinking in a VS Code extension), because I wanted and thought others would want something that is a) open source and b) version control friendly so we don't even have to rely on a sync server being there in the future.
> We invest so much time in it, and we need to know that it's not going to be taken away from us
Agreed, but in the case of Obsidian, since the way they manage the data, they cannot just "take it away from us", it'll always sit where you leave it, as it's not a SaaS or a remote service. And even if the desktop client went away, all your data and notes are still available.
Otherwise I generally agree with you, all my professional and personal tooling shouldn't be able to take away agency from me, but it's worth separate the tooling from the data, as loosing the tooling sucks but loosing the data is a lot worse, at least they cannot do that.
Agree wholeheartedly, but you already have that with Obsidian. You own the vault, and if you don't want obsidian, its already in markdown.
> explain to me why developers should act like monks who've taken a vow of poverty? The devs built something valuable, they should profit from it.
No, don't bully others into a fake argument about your weird fantasies.
They never said that developers should be poor. That's also incorrect. Please don't pull others into this kind of toxic discussions.
Not saying they have to be, it's just a weird assumption that I've built up in my head. Possibly because obsidian handles sensitive data and I somewhat was under the impression it has the open-source tier scrutiny when it came to inner workings of the app.
It's a personal bias for me.
Perception of quality, because the author is under constant review.
Not everyone feels comfortable running third-party opaque code in their computers.
Most people paying money for software do, though.
Did GP edit the post? Please explain to me where they stated that developers should act like monks who’ve taken a vow of poverty?
I completely agree with the sentiment of your reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48181203 btw
The reason is open standard. Obsidian uses markdown, that's it. No proprietary database, no fancy algorithm, no locked in platform, just a convenient way to manage your notes (jesus, that sounded like AI). You can realistically do it yourself, but they've helped you to do it for the low price of an online sync subscription.
That's why I will always hammer on open standards and federation.
I had absolutely no idea either, I had just assumed that it was, which was a dumb assumption to make. Thanks for pointing it out!
So, this comes up pretty much every time Obsidian is mentioned... to the point where I'm curious as to where the idea that it's open source comes from in the first place.
It is because most people don't know and don't care about the difference between free and open-source.
because open source is a means not an end. folks want good, fast software that respects them. open source isn't the only way there.
I always just assumed!
I don't really mind Obsidian being non-FOSS, since it doesn't lock you in to any kind of propriety bullshit.
All my files are just vanilla text files. All the folders are just vanilla folders. All the attachments are just vanilla attachments. If Obsidian pissed me off, then I'd still have my notes in a fairly accessible format.