Yo this looks awesome!
I got the self-hosted docker container running within 2 minutes and started importing all my Obsidian Markdown Documents. The automatic Collections based on tags is awesome
This looks legit pretty promising! I’ve been gradually working on moving off of Notion for the last year, and somehow this one slipped past my notice.
Be advised that at least the backend is not open source but rather just source available. It’s under a proprietary license.
Thank you!
@foosel let’s add them to the list: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
Just went to do this and there’s already a request open to get it added: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/issues/41
The license on server forbids you to do anything about it, but it is “hey look, open source!”. i.e. You can see, develop and modify the code on your own but under the license you can’t do anything about it. That’s really saying you are allowed to develop something you legally cannot own unless you paid the subscription, on top of that they can slap the “open source” label on it.
I mean, open source means “open” “source”. Which it is. Having open source software is still really important for auditing, and compiling it yourself (for portability, security, etc).
Free and open source is another thing. And that, it isn’t.
IMHO they are totally in the right to slap the open source label on their software, because it absolutely is. There is zero abuse there.
The real problem comes from the mixup between OSS and FOSS. People readily use either to mean the same thing, which is “free software”.
The problem with such mixups is that people say one thing, and expect another. And if you give them exactly what they said, they will feel duped. Like with OSS vs FOSS, but also Linux vs GNU/Linux, bash vs POSIX sh, etc.
The term “open source” is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.
Technically, it’s “source available” if that’s what they mean/say. However, afaiu the
This EE License applies only to the part of this Software that is not distributed as part of AFFiNE Community Edition (CE). Any part of this Software distributed as part of AFFiNE CE or is served client-side […], is copyrighted under the MPL2.0 license.
part, it only applies to enterprise edition, so that’s quite a common way of doing things. Kinda like what gitlab does with their ce and we versions.
Edit: well, and you are enterprise as soon as you use it in production. So, yeah, source available.
@7heo taking the term “open source” literally as just open for reading (not open for modification, distribution etc…) that’s only what big monopolistic corporations want you to believe. They’ve been attempting to redefine the term for many years. Before they started this campaign it was pretty clear to everyone that open source means one of the OSI licenses. Think about it, if it was only about readability, then all javascript would be technically open source. The mixup is artificial.
cries in Obsidian
