4 ms·

I don't see why you cant let people download and self-host the sync service if they want. Most people would probably pay to use yours but many people would want

I don't see why you cant let people download and self-host the sync service if they want. Most people would probably pay to use yours but many people would want to self host as opposed to using fragile and feature-incomplete community supported plugins... people seem to replicate the sync server anyway, why not give them a better experience and live up to the "your notes" promise that is all over the website.

PurpleRamen 3y ago
There is little benefit, but big harm in releasing the server. They would be responsible for supporting users in using the server, which could be little or big additional work. Releasing the server would also demand additional work for the release itself, like writing documentation, and fixing some errors. And it could also lower the little income they already have, and at least send the message that there are fewer reasons to financially support them and the development of Obsidian. On the other side, the alternatives are working well enough, so there is not much reason to release the server.
- fourstepper 3y ago
  > They would be responsible for supporting users in using the server, which could be little or big additional work. From the MIT license (and similar with many others): ... THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Obsidian is not open source. And users don't care for this nitpick. For a company it's necessary to maintain an image; leaving your users alone with their problems with your software, is bad marketing.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

There is little benefit, but big harm in releasing the server. They would be responsible for supporting users in using the server, which could be little or big additional work. Releasing the server would also demand additional work for the release itself, like writing documentation, and fixing some errors. And it could also lower the little income they already have, and at least send the message that there are fewer reasons to financially support them and the development of Obsidian. On the other side, the alternatives are working well enough, so there is not much reason to release the server.

fourstepper 3y ago
> They would be responsible for supporting users in using the server, which could be little or big additional work. From the MIT license (and similar with many others): ... THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Obsidian is not open source. And users don't care for this nitpick. For a company it's necessary to maintain an image; leaving your users alone with their problems with your software, is bad marketing.