Open source does not mean open license.
Open source does not mean open license.
Yes, typically with two entirely separate disks, not just partitions on the same physical disk.
If you cannot trust yourself, then do not provide yourself temptation
It is 5 minutes of work to use your source control tool, and have a read only view for other people.
Being open source doesn’t mean you have to accept PRs or pay for audits. It just means your source is… Open…
There’s nothing disingenuous about that? Did we read the same things?
Being closed source doesn’t fix any of the issues they noted.
I’d rather they just say “I’m ashamed of my code”.
I just commented this elsewhere, but I personally feel that their reasons for being closed source are worse than actually just being closed source.
I wasn’t worried about it being proprietary until I saw the founder reasoning for not having the source be open under a nonpermissive licence.
https://obsidian.rocks/why-isnt-obsidian-open-source/
I decided to go with logseq because of it.
It also syncs with all my devices using my own servers, instead of needing to trust obsidian/logseq.
Without saying anything about politics, environment, or source:
Why, for the love of Satan, does this graph have only 2 data points per source?
Why use a line chart 📉 for that?
This is clear bar chart territory 📊.