Feel like I should clarify something: So from what I read from Obsidian’s team: the commercial side isn’t the main reason for not open sourcing.
Obsidian finances are good, they’re growing at a good rate. The app was already free, so all the money is from donations (catalyst) or Sync/Publish services.
The main reason why Obsidian doesn’t want to do open source is because then they have to ‘bother’ with all the people who want to chime in on the source code and review Pull Requests that might be of lower quality. By not being open source, they have full control of code quality and process.
I love open source but I understand their reasoning. Just wanted to clarify their (main) reason isn’t financially. It’s practically and time utilization wise.
Also the Any Association’s model is extremely similar to Obsidian’s. It solved the open licence issue with its Any Source Available License, which they also explain here.
Thibaultmol, being open doesn’t necessitate accepting and managing community contributions; it makes that an option under the developers’ full control.
You’re not wrong. Technically. But realistically, it does create that expectation. So you’ll have a lot of community members screaming at the devs saying “why aren’t you doing this change, here’s my code fix” (devs don’t bother with the PR) “THE DEV TEAM DOESN’T CARE, THEY WON’T EVEN ACCEPT MY CHANGE”
Is what would happen I’m afraid