[ryu-suke]

it's not about getting people to "work for free", it's about enabling people to create freely. The reason verified tools need to be open source is to ensure transparency and trust for users who install them, and for me to label them as verified, not to impose a one-sided standard. Users should know what a plugin does before they integrate it into their workspace. That said, nothing stops developers from making private or commercial plugins if they choose to, it will still be available on the app's plugin list but it won't be labeled as verified

[traverseda]

>The reason verified tools need to be open source is to ensure transparency and trust for users who install them

Is that not true of the code you've written here as well? I don't understand why you have different rules for yourself or for people developing for your platform.

[ryu-suke]

I get where you’re coming from, but the distinction is pretty straightforward: Hollow is the platform, and plugins are extensions that users install separately. The open source requirement for verified plugins isn’t about fairness between the platform and developers, it’s about ensuring transparency for users when they install third-party extensions.

That said, not all plugins have to be open source, developers are free to create private or commercial plugins, and they will still be available inside the app. They just won’t carry the verified label, which exists purely to help users make informed choices.

[traverseda]

You don't get to decide whether it's about fairness or not. It is going to be about fairness for a bunch of your early adopters. This is actually the kind of product I suspect I'd go for, I'm pretty firmly in your target audience. I'm the kind of person who has hacked python support into logseq for example. I'm telling you that fairness is a concern, and that I find requiring verified add-ons to be open source while not open sourcing your own code to be unfair.

Some big companies can do unfair stuff like this. Somehow obsidian manages. I don't think you can with what you have right now. You make a compelling enough project, spend enough money on marketing, you probably can. If you want grassroots support it's not happening with that model. At least not from me.

You could consider sharing the source under the business source license. That might still give you whatever protections you're looking for but that you're not stating outright. You have sort of dodged the question as to why it's not open source, and you're not saying what your future plans are that mean it can't be open source. That concerns me.

Give the BSL (business source license) some serious consideration. I don't think you're going to get a bunch of developer early adopters if they don't have some ownership over the product.

[edoceo]

Arguing with prospective users on why their opinion is wrong is an indicator that you don't "get where they are coming from"