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.
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 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).
This actually looks refreshingly simple. A lot of note-taking apps become productivity operating systems after a while.
Its "safe" as in you can access it but its not safe from Obsidian accessing it.
> 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.
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!]
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.
Obsidian has an entire plugin category for syncing, and recommended alternatives to the official Sync service.
https://community.obsidian.md/search?type=plugin&categories=...
https://obsidian.md/help/sync-notes
True, and it's great that they don't block those (they absolutely could).
But those are plugins and aren't as easy to use as the integrated sync. Obsidian wants to have their sync to be the easiest to use, and the easiest to discover.
If they went FOSS anyone could just create a rebranded fork that includes their sync instead of Obsidian's sync. Even GPL wouldn't stop that, if the competitor would just keeps their product open source too.
You're replying to the CEO of Obsidian btw ;P
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48088576
:O
As an Obsidian LiveSync user, there is no way I would recommend using it or other third-party alternatives to my non-technical friends. The initial setup and fly.io setup was worth me saving ~50 Euro/year, but I doubt that holds for my less technically inclined peers.
This is definitely it. I set it up myself with git private repos because my more-work to more-cost balance weighs heavily towards more-work. It would be trivial to fork it, set up some sync backend, and charge $4 a month to undercut them.
And honestly, they've been very good stewards of the project thus far, I'm happy with the status quo.
And I remember that did happen at one point: https://github.com/acheong08/obi-sync
The mechanism that allowed that was patched as a vulnerability
I doubt that. There are competing sync extensions in their extension store. If you do not want to use extensions, you can sync the vault folder with any syncing app for free.
The whole data structure is designed to make this easy.
I chose Syncthing for this purpose, and it is free and works flawlessly. You can even trivially disable their native sync, as it comes as an internal extension.
Mozilla could have avoided so much drama with Pocket, VPN, AI features, etc., if they just were as transparent and liberal with critical first-party services as Obsidian is.
[dead]
Two-faced signalling:
- "We have nothing to hide";
- "We are willing to take you to court for taking advantage of our trust".
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.
I never thought about this before, and it hasn’t been mentioned significantly in the vast amount of AI threads I read here. But it’s a really good point as skeptical as I am (in mid-2026) of AI first codebases
BTW, this is not an AI codebase :)
It was mostly crafted by hand.
Let's say, I've saved some "complexity space" for LLM to add features on top.
In other words, the project has dumb-simple code right now, and it is ready to hold some amount of "tech-debt" from an LLM.
Tanner Lisnley did this with React. He didn't share it but talked about his experience. Basically, he re-wrote React with only the parts he was interested in. Sort of like his own version of Preact. You might be interested in his blog post about the subject: https://tannerlinsley.com/posts/projecting-react
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.
A text editor with good UX is quite complex, I think it's hard to argue otherwise.
Most text-editors by large corporations don't even pass this bar.
Emacs and vi(m) have always been free.
How many text editors have you paid for, versus how many have you used for free?
I do think there is room for a few good paid text editors in the world, but most people won't pay directly for them, though they might use them if they are bundled ala Google Docs / O365 Word.
I have paid for Obsidian and Samsung Notes as part of buying a Samsung phone.
I also paid for a few more, e.g. Notion, but I think it's better to focus on: There's definitely value in good text editors.
They can greatly enhance your experience with a system, e.g. if Samsung Notes was amazing I'd be much more likely to stick to using a Samsung phone.
Sure, but I would say you are an outlier in paying for those things. Most people use what's immediately available, others might search for something better that's free, and very few will go pay for something.
That last category of people are also now likely to go create something themselves with AI, but don't really want to or can't start a business from it, so they may add it to the pile of free software others can use.
Not everyone HAS to profit from their work, though I do think those who make it their passion might benefit from finding a way to do that.
Hello, fellow Dendron user. I haven't found good-enough alternatives either.
Hm, maybe we should go make one.
I am not a power user for Dendron, I mostly just use it for journaling, keeping track of who is who and what is what, and organizing architecture / ideas before they find a home somewhere else. Mostly a journal.
I do like that it’s in VS Code and I can leverage those tools and now, AI, to help.
The main functionality I use is the new daily journal from template feature. Do you use more surface area from it? What is the most useful features for you?
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.
Donationware is a viable business model for basically nobody.
Most people won't pay for something if they don't have to.
It doesn't work because people that make $100k+ salaries wont buy their "friend" a beer. It's not failing because a bunch of poor people don't donate.
And it is viable because many things already operate this way. The most profitable ones have just convinced companies to donate. That shouldn't be required, but I'm not ignoring the reality.
Besides, this is a reality that is solvable simply by a small percentage of people going "you know what? I will donate". Not "everybody", just a very very small proportion. Let's take ripgrep as an example. Who knows how many people use this, but there's over 64k stars. Let's say 1% donate $5/mo. That's $3.2k/mo for burntsushi, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy with that. He's also a prolific HN user so maybe he'll even respond.
My point is that all it takes is a mental shift from a small number of people. This isn't some "we need huge collaboration therefore it'll never happen" type of thing, this is "I can take action and have meaningful impact today" type of thing.
>My point is that all it takes is a mental shift from a small number of people. This isn't some "we need huge collaboration therefore it'll never happen" type of thing, this is "I can take action and have meaningful impact today" type of thing.
Always good to promote these apparent small wins in case the catch on. Do suspect the shift to make, instead of hoping our psychology changes en masse:
Change the model to one of the freebie models that works for high-income earners. High-income earners are OK to make purchases of tangible things where they're promised good is done for the world. Then they enjoy their music and wine (at the gala), or tote bag or whatnot.
We gonna be invited to the first Text Editor Gala?! Maybe not. 50/50 raffle supporting a text editor dev, though, maybe... (ugh a little gambley)
tl;dr give the self-wealth-protecting psychology of the wealthy an out to help them justify their good deed, like NPR sponsor gifts
(to execute - cut some deals with concert venues, restaurants, handmade good purveyors... obtain discounts... then work with developers to set up bespoke relevant rewards for given donation tiers. first part of this plan could be a decent task for the non-developers who wanna contribute to OSS)
I mean whatever it takes. But these days we're fighting a huge attention and disinformation campaign that is trying to teach you that you can't make any change and overload you with a million problems. I hope it breaks soon. I hope it can't continue forever. The world has always changed, and will continue to, because of the actions of a few. A small cog in a big machine can still take down the entire machine. You don't have to do everything, but you should do something. Even if it is something small. Small to you is often big to those being helped.
And yet the majority of all computers dont just have some open source software, their operating systems are open source. The worlds digital infrastructure is largely open source.
Not to mention the majority of business software depends on open source software too! Be it the thousands of libraries we use (so we don't have to implement ourselves and we get better integration with others) to literally building on top of open source stuff (Android, every slicer for your 3d printer, all your servers, and literally millions of other things)
Exactly, this is what I was getting at. The guy above uses open source software every time he touches anything electric.
Agreed. I'm often impressed hope people on HN of all places don't realize how prolific open source software is. Doesn't matter if you throw a literal or figurative stone in a random direction, you'll probably hit something that uses OSS.
Btw, my comment was intended to append yours, not counter or argue. Sorry if it came off that way
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.
Obsidian has a number of full time employees who all want to eat and afford rent
> Obsidian has a number of full time employees who all want to eat and afford rent
They have lots of sponsors [1]; you can pay $4/month for sync service or $50 a year, per person for a commercial license.
[1]: https://obsidian.md/enterprise/
The burden of OSS is dealing with PRs that you don't want to merge. The drive by bug fixes don't compensate for that.
There is no obligation to maintain, no obligation to merge. Copyright is just that, copy right, it’s not an entitlement.
Free as in beer and free as in speech means those ‘contributors’ are also free as in Linus to go fork themselves.
Don’t like it? Go fork, yourself. Want it different? Pay, money, make, it, happen. Don’t like paying? Go fork, yourself, harder.
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.
Obsidian is just a shitty wrapper around CodeMirror, which does the actual heavy lifting. How much of the money should Obsidian hand over to the CodeMirror developer?
The same way they do now?
How does Obsidian team get paid when the app is 100% free?
Now you have the answer.
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.
But if the flip side (getting compensated) wasn't also an important concern then maybe far more software would be OSS in recent decades...
>but it feels like if this were an important question it would have halted OSS development decades ago
no because the people who maintain the nuts and bolts of the open source world, like the often individual or handful contributors to projects like ffmpeg or xz-utils have been passionately doing that and at times burning out (which in case of the latter caused pretty prominent problems).
Does the world look to you like it's in a state where important questions and problems don't go unanswered? The reason this stuff works is because there's random guys in a basement in Kentucky somewhere who thanklessly work their asses off and nobody cares. They simply keep doing it because half of the internet would fall apart otherwise.
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.
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).
> 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.
I think exactly the same as you, but that doesn't give me the myopic view of "either you do open source or you get rich"
> 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).
You know this because you spent a whole of two minutes thinking about it?
It'd make a different bet, that Obsidian is popular today, but if they went FOSS, they'd become ubiquitous. Probably some copy-pasted competitors would appear as quickly as they'd disappear, because they're not Team Obsidian, and obviously don't know as much as Obsidian does.
But anyways, this is all speculation, I don't know for sure what would happen either, but at least I'm humble enough to know I don't know.
Obsidian is free lol!
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).
Well they'd just release it under a non-commercial license. The majority of their income comes from Obsidian Sync, and someone can't just host their own version of Obsidian Sync for all the Obsidian users for free. And there are already self-hosted alternatives to Obsidian Sync, in fact Obsidian even endorses them themselves[1].
As for their other paid service, Obsidian Publish, since all Obsidian notes are in plain markdown there are already many free alternatives.
So open sourcing would not harm any of those income streams. It's not about Obsidian losing profit. If you want to read the actual reasons they have decided not to open source Obsidian, they have talked about it on their forums[2]
[1] https://obsidian.md/help/sync-notes [2] https://forum.obsidian.md/t/open-sourcing-of-obsidian/1515/1...
> So open sourcing would not harm any of those income streams.
Obsidian's income streams are based on Obsidian having easy-to-use easy-to-setup ways to sync and publish built-in. If Obsidian were open source, someone could fork it and remove or replace those built-in methods, which has the potential to harm their income streams. Whether it actually would and by how much depends on a lot of unknowns and is all just conjecture, but _if_ such a fork became somehow more popular than Obsidian proper, that'd definitely affect them.
> 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.
Would it? Something like Zulip seems like a way better target in that case, but Zulip seems to manage just fine with open-source code and running their own platform people can pay for.
Not saying it is easy nor not hard, I'm just saying I don't agree with "either you do open source, or you go broke" because history shows us there are more choices than that.
Zulip manages so well that their top-people just left Zulip and joined Anthropic.
Zulip got a foundation at the same time, literally the best that could have happen to the FOSS parts of it, basically a dream come true for the people relying on it to continue being FOSS.
Let's see in a few years how the development of Zulip has progressed by then. It is not a foundation like Zig, where the main guy is actively working on it. It is the best that could have happened, except of course the top people staying on.
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.
Considering Microsoft's been making more and more of VSCode non-FOSS, I'm pretty sure using it as your base is at odds with your goals.
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.