+1 for open source.
I’m new btw, just installed obsidian a few days ago.
I’m currently trialing this program for my college study notes. Previously I used Joplin for this task; it’s pretty good, but is more aimed at simple note taking–and my notes have expanded to a point where I need to link knowledge together.
It is unfortunate that this software isn’t open source. I really appreciate how obsidian stores its notes–Joplin stores the files as hashed filenames making it prohibitively difficult to browse notes through the filesystem. This eases lock-in concerns, but doesn’t fully resolve the issue of the software itself not being open.
I did skim through some discussion on this topic, including some developer responses. It seems to me that the developers have a misunderstanding of open source in general (or at least, their views differ from my views on open source).
If the developers don’t wish to maintain documentation, or manage code contributions, that’s fine. It’s their code after all, and I do believe there are means to license their software in a way that prohibits distributing forks. (Even though that goes against FSF/GNU philosophies).
The reason I believe most here are asking for open source, is for the ability to examine the code, and/or personally compile the software for themselves. This is desirable because it validates that the software one runs doesn’t have hidden backdoors/what-have-you within the binary blob. There are other software offerings which do a similar thing to what I’m describing; Vivaldi (chromium-based proprietary Web Browser) does release the source code for viewing, but prohibits modification.
I’m aware of certain other alternatives that I may also check out, such as logseq. If anyone responses to my post here feel free to mention any and all alternatives, there may be ones I’ve yet to find. Also, do correct me if I’m wrong on any points. Thank you.