Users not informed about switch to proprietary license; other concerns

[samnystrom]

Hello @brianpetro,

In your response to issue #1293, you invited me to continue the conversation in Discussions. Your response did not address several of my concerns.

1. Why was the licensing change concealed in the v4 commit?

The licensing change was buried in commit f411b3e with:

• An uninformative title: "Merge Smart Connections v4"
• +3,189/-7,932 lines changed
• 111 different files changed

You claimed this "is consistent with how major versions of this project have been handled," but this is demonstrably false. The v3 release followed a typical git workflow with incremental commits over time. No v3 commit approached this size, and the v3 release did not fundamentally alter the project's licensing.

Why was v4 developed differently, and why was the license change not mentioned in the commit message?

2. Why wasn't the licensing change communicated to users?

Licensing changes, especially ones as major as yours (GPL -> modified MIT with proprietary clause), are typically discussed with the community beforehand and announced prominently when they happen. In your case, no announcement or discussion took place. The licensing change was not mentioned anywhere at all.

Users who updated to v4 had no notification that the plugin was switching to a proprietary license. Most of them still believe they're using open-source software.

You stated the license is "plainly documented in the repository," but a LICENSE file in git is not something most users will ever read.

Why was there no announcement of this change on any platform where users would actually see it?

3. Can you provide evidence of @stdword's relicensing consent?

You stated: "That contribution was merged via PR #1222, with context documented here: #1222 (comment). The contributor was recognized with lifetime founding supporter status in appreciation of their work." In PR #1222, you requested that stdword email you privately, but there is no public record of whether they did, or what the email was about, or whether they gave consent.

"Founding supporter status" is not evidence of relicensing permission. Documented consent is needed to relicense contributor code, especially from copyleft (GPL) to proprietary.

Can you provide public evidence that @stdword explicitly consented to relicensing their contribution from GPLv3 to the MIT+noncompete license?

4. Why is the pricing so high relative to the ecosystem?

The Pro plan costs $10/month ($99/year), which is:

• 2x the price of Obsidian Sync ($5/month, $48/year)
• 2.4x the one-time cost of Obsidian itself ($50 commercial license)
• 10-20x typical paid Obsidian plugin pricing ($5-20 one-time)
• 50% of Claude AI's base tier ($20/month for the AI itself)

Many users have complained about the exorbitant pricing, especially since Obsidian users typically rely on multiple plugins. If every plugin charged $10/month, the ecosystem would collapse.

What justifies pricing a single plugin at more than twice the cost of the entire note-taking application it runs on?

---

I appreciate that you invited continued discussion here. I look forward to your responses to these specific questions.

[samnystrom]

Another issue I noticed: the modified MIT license contains an internal contradiction. It grants the right to "sell copies of the Software" but also prohibits use "as a substantial component of any product or service... offered as a general-purpose solution to multiple unrelated customers (whether for a fee or free of charge)."

A license can't simultaneously grant permission to sell and prohibit selling. This may make the license unenforceable, leaving users without clear legal rights to use the software.

[brianpetro]

I hear the concerns about licensing, communication, and community moderation.

Let me briefly respond to the above questions, then I'll clarify and address the circumstances that brought forth this discussion post.

1. Why was the licensing change concealed in the v4 commit?

To imply that the license was concealed is inaccurate, considering it primarily affects forks/redistribution. For those that are impacted, developers and business people seeking to resell a competing product, a LICENSE file in the git repo is standard practice, so much so that GitHub has specially designed features for bringing further attention to the file.

The license change coincided with a major version change. All of the code changes were developed in the "Early release" repository, which is consistent with how all major developments have been produced since version 2. My git workflow is my own, and I make no excuses for using the methods that work for me.

Even if most users never fork, I understand license changes affect trust and should be communicated prominently. While it wasn’t my intent to hide it, I agree that I should make an extra effort to bring attention to any license changes in the future.

2. Why wasn't the licensing change communicated to users?

Functionally, the license affects forks/redistribution more than everyday users.

What's important about the license is that the source code is available A) for auditing, which it has to be one of the easiest plugins to audit given the principle of minimizing dependencies, and B) can be modified, and even redistributed, so long as it's not directly competing with Pro plugins, which are a necessary component in sustaining my work on the project.

Even if it mainly affects forks, I agree it should be clearly called out because it affects expectations.

Going forward, license and pricing model changes will be included in the release notes.

3. Can you provide evidence of @stdword's relicensing consent?

I'm not going to publish private correspondence. If any contributor believes their code is mislicensed, I’ll promptly remove/rewrite it and document the resolution.

You can read more about the specific instance in question in the previous issue.

4. Why is the pricing so high relative to the ecosystem?

The price is commensurate with the number of users that pay and what I need to sustain the project.

The truth is that a very small percentage of users are willing and able to pay for advanced features in an ecosystem that is built on low/no cost components. Unfortunately, reducing the price by half will not double the number of those users.

A thriving ecosystem requires energy. And I take pride in what I offer at a premium price. Not only does it empower me to provide support for the Pro features that require it, but it also enables me to keep providing Core features at scale for no cost.

More context

My passion for this project is the reason I'm incredibly grateful for those who have been able to support its continued development. And anyone who's contributed their time to meet with, whether one-on-one or in our community lean coffee meetings, undoubtedly knows that my intentions behind every decision for this project are made according to principles that I hold dear.

The mission behind this project has always been "to empower individuals." This has led to many decisions that, however unpopular they may seem now, will empower me to fulfill that mission.

For example, the much-loved Smart Chat API integration. While having a native chat in Obsidian with access to Smart Environment embeddings is nice to have, there are many sufficient alternatives. So the question was, "Should I prioritize this thing that has many alternatives, or should I go after underexplored opportunities to leverage AI?" To me, the answer is so clear that my only regret is not making the decision sooner.

For another example of my decision-making: "Should API integrations continue to be supported in the Core plugin set?" These integrations, requiring custom code for each platform, of which there are more than I can count, require an outsized amount of both maintenance and support time. Once again, this is something that, in an effort to best empower individuals, both quantitatively (ease of use) and qualitatively (providing novel feature sets), was an easy decision.

Moderating

To keep this forum useful and welcoming, discussions must remain respectful and focused on the product and decisions, not on personal attacks or accusations about individuals.

Posts or comments that include repeated personal attacks, harassment, or inflammatory accusations may be removed, and accounts that continue after a warning may be temporarily blocked from participating.

In this case, I have temporarily blocked @Stonks3141 from this forum due to repeated personal and accusatory language in prior threads.

If they would like to appeal, they can contact me directly (or open a moderation request), confirming they will follow the community guidelines going forward. If that commitment is made, I am open to reconsidering the block.

Separately, anyone (including @Stonks3141) is welcome to join a community lean coffee meeting to discuss concerns live in a more constructive setting.

🌴

[brianpetro]

Added Canonical license page (plain-English summary + scenarios + FAQ + full text): https://smartconnections.app/legal/license/