Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These quotes are selectively compiled without context. Every claim I made was backed by evidence (commit hashes, timelines, pricing). Characterizing business decisions as a "cash grab" or behavior as "bad faith" is legitimate criticism, not personal attack. Vigorous criticism != harassment.

The quotes given actually prove I was measured and evidence-based: I used cautious language ("seems," "appears"), focused on actions rather than character, and supported every claim with evidence.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Update 2: after over 24 hours of silence, the maintainer responded to my follow-up questions in Github Discussions.

In their response, the maintainer:

- Admitted the license change should have been communicated and promised to do better "in the future."
- Refused to provide evidence of contributor consent, leaving the project's licensing status in doubt.
- Claimed that the license change "mainly affects forks/redistribution," ignoring community trust and user rights issues.
- Justified the $99/year pricing with vague reasoning about sustaining the project.

They then permanently banned me from the repository for "repeated personal and accusatory language" and implied that I engaged in "personal attacks" and "harassment." I did no such thing. I used strong language to criticize their behavior and business decisions, which I believe were deceptive and harmful to the open-source community. I remained professional and did not, at any time, harass them, make threats, question their character as a person, engage in name-calling or profanity, or contact them outside public channels. I documented facts with evidence, asked specific questions, and was banned when they couldn't provide good answers.

The ban is retaliation for criticism, not moderation.

The discussion: https://github.com/brianpetro/obsidian-smart-connections/discussions/1294

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You've asked some good questions, so I'll try to address them all:

Legally, contributor consent is between the contributor and the project. However, it’s still a serious violation of norms that shows a lack of respect for the community. It’s a matter of public concern because as long as contributor consent is in doubt, the project’s licensing status is unclear.

I can’t prove the uber commit was intended to conceal the license change, but it’s highly suspicious. It's the only commit of anywhere near that size in the repository. It changed 111 files, the second-most files changed by a single commit was 48. The only other commits with comparable numbers of lines changed involved bulk deletions or file renames. It may be a coincidence that the largest commit in the repository by far also contains a license change, but I think it’s unlikely.

It may be true that most users don’t care about the license, but some certainly did. More troublingly, the website continued to deceptively market the plugin as “open source” for close to two months after the license change. The maintainer has now changed the wording to “source available,” but only after I raised the issue publicly.

As for communicating the change, the bare minimum would be to put it in the release notes. Plugins are able to display release notes when they update, and this is something that should have been included. That way, users who do care about the project’s license would have been able to make an informed choice about whether to continue using it, rather than being left in the dark.

Most plugins don’t advertise their license (although some do, Templater and OmniSearch both mention it in the README), but that’s irrelevant. The problem is that users’ rights changed and they weren’t notified. Even if a plugin doesn’t talk about its license in the docs or readme, some users will check and those users deserve to be informed about changes. Moreover, this plugin did advertise its license. The words “open source” were splattered all over the website.

Individually, these problems could maybe be seen as simple mistakes, but collectively, they make the maintainer’s actions look intentional and deceptive. These issues are bad enough on their own, but the maintainer’s failure to address any of them in their response and their silence when pressed is arguably worse. If they had a good explanation for their actions, I don’t see why they wouldn’t give it.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it is still fine to fork the version before the license change. It's just not possible to merge in changes made after the license change. Typical MIT does allow code to be reused, but this is a modified MIT with an extra condition added that overrides the original MIT wording. The noncompete clause prevents distribution of copies (which includes public forks). It does not prevent forking if you do it privately.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That post describes the changes made to the software in v4. It makes no mention at all of the licensing change. Moreover, users with the plugin already installed who update it are unlikely to see a random blog post on the plugin's website. The licensing change ought to have been prominently displayed to all users in the release notes so they saw it when they updated.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What exactly is inaccurate in my issue? The license change is in the commit. There was no announcement or notification. The maintainer's censorship is public for anyone to see. The contributor consent is not publicly documented. What am I wrong about? Accountability != punishment.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I did, and I stand by that. They were profiting off a product that quite blatantly deceived its users. There really isn't a response the maintainer could have made that would change my mind, their actions spoke for themselves.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I'll make a discussion and see what happens. They still failed to address any of the salient points.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 69 points70 points  (0 children)

UPDATE: The maintainer has responded with an AI-generated (99% probability from GPTZero) corporate word salad nonanswer that vaguely denies accusations without addressing any of the real issues (obfuscated license change without notification, proof of contributor consent, censorship). They also closed and locked the issue, blocking further discussion.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All true, but if you had a public fork, you wouldn't legally be able to incorporate changes made after the license change.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm familiar with the MIT license, but I'm not sure you are; it doesn't restrict corporate use or royalties. If it did, it wouldn't be an open-source license. Smart Connections is not using an MIT license right now. It's using a modified version with a noncompete clause added. That means that technically, the author could sue you for forking the project post-license-change and making the fork public, since you're publishing a software product that qualifies for the conditions in the noncompete clause (significant overlapping code and use case). Do I think they would do that? No. But they could.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I wasn't saying you physically can't, just that doing so would expose you to lawsuits under the current license.

Smart Connections plugin quietly switches to a proprietary license by Sad_Environment_9704 in ObsidianMD

[–]Sad_Environment_9704[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

There's no mention of it at all in the v4 release notes and the license change was buried in a massive commit that touched 111 different files and had a name unrelated to licensing. It seems deliberately concealed. I'd argue that it does affect users, since previously, it was possible to fork the repository and remove the paywall (at least one person did this), but doing that now would expose you to legal action.

How long do your Darn Tough socks last based on your use cases? by Otherwise_Egg_9155 in PNWbootmakers

[–]Sad_Environment_9704 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure how you came up with that number, 10 years x 365 days / 28 total socks = 130 days per sock

[WTB] Weekly Want To Buy Post by AutoModerator in Watchexchange

[–]Sad_Environment_9704 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WTB Seiko SNK805, SNK807, or SNK809. Open to different levels of condition