If you’re looking for #OpenSource app recommendations, you probably generally land in the usual Β« LibreOffice / GIMP Β» space.

But what about replacing other proprietary apps, like Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, Teams or Slack?

Well, I have a few recommendations for these as well, if you want to go all open source (and they all run on #Linux, of course):

https://youtu.be/P8accXNcwjs

OPEN SOURCE alternatives to the MOST POPULAR productivity apps!

YouTube

@thelinuxEXP holy s**t, I did not know that obsidian was not open source, I already assumed that it was.

though, luckily there is affine which is another alternative to obsidian, perhaps I can that more than obsidian and later move my workflow towares affine instead

@vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP

#SiYuan is probably the closest to #Obsidian but #FOSS

The only disadvantage is that it uses a JSON file for each page instead of Markdown files, but the import/export is excellent and integrates #Pandoc

@alxlg @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP Given some of the recent paygate stuff on some features, I am not quite sure that SiYuan is GPL-compliant anymore.

@spinningthoughts @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP

The original authors can release a version with a different and more restrictive license or that include closed source binary blobs, it's what Logseq does too. It's people forking it that can't. And companies generally handles the implications of having external contributors by requiring them to sign a CLA (Contributor License Agreement).

@alxlg @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP I am not an expert on the GPL by any means, but my understanding is that using GPL-released code in any kind of larger commercial framework is forbidden. In this case theyβ€˜re releasing a product where clearly code blobs are locked behind a lock-in and a paying account, so to me that looks like they created a commercial product on top of the GPL-liscenced codebase, adding on additional features.

@spinningthoughts @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP

If you release something with license X, later *you* can release it (with or without modifications) again with license Y.

X can also be the GPL and Y a paid commercial license.

A license never restricts the rights of the original authors. A license applies to other people, it's what "license" means in the first place.

@alxlg @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP I am certain that is not correct. For example the Creative Commons liscences are exclusive - they do not allow you to release the same IP under a different liscence. I am unsure if the same applies to GPL, but I would expect this insofar as that the entire *point* of GPL, to my understanding, was to disallow any capture into a commercial project.

@spinningthoughts @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP

Then why the official FAQ says "All CC licenses are non-exclusive"?

https://creativecommons.org/faq/

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

@alxlg @vegetotownley @thelinuxEXP Hmmm. Then I got fed bad information in a longer discussion and have to revise. Thanks for the correction.