[dead]
Cal.com is going closed source
281–290 of 337 posts
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#282[flagged]
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#283Very weak argument. You could have had the same speech before AI.
I would rather say that the core product is not strong and differentiated enough to resist this new age of coding, and it's an attempt to protect revenues.
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#284I'm sorta suspicious. I don’t really think this is why they are moving to closed source. It’s true that there is more security risk, but that actually justifies being open source, because open source tooling can spend more tokens hardening itself against security vulns than closed source tooling (at least, that’s the theory). My strong hunch is they are moving to closed source because it is now trivial to copy a prod…
I very much doubt that addendum would hold up to a lawyer.
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#285Drew Breunig published a very relevant piece yesterday that came to the opposite conclusion: https://www.dbreunig.com/2026/04/14/cybersecurity-is-proof-o... Since security exploits can now be found by spending tokens, open source is MORE valuable because open source libraries can share that auditing budget while closed source software has to find all the exploits themselves in private. > If Mythos continues to find e…
It's been a common wisdom now for decades that open source is more secure. Security is just a scapegoat here.
> It's been a common wisdom now for decades that open source is more secure.
This is not true.
The problem rather is that the managers of many companies don't allow their programmers to apply their knowledge about security - the programmers should rather weed out new features.
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you. How many things do you want to be responsible for? How many vibe coded projects do you want to maintain? I think this line of reasoning is overblown. Just because you can doesn't mean a significant number of people will . I think the 3D printer comparison is apt.
> How many vibe coded projects do you want to maintain? here comes the next SaaS idea - vibe coded services as a service. You tell what service you want, may be point out a couple examples, and you get that service vibe coded and hosted for you for a small monthly fee!
I think you missed the point. Being responsible for a vibe coded product means also being able to support it and handle outages etcetera.
So, no, hosting LLM output is not the same as being responsible
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have the means to develop in house. Why aren't they?
Same story as always, writing the code in the easy part. Requirement gathering, analysis, consensus, direction, those are all the hard parts. Enterprises have a business to run and don’t want to run a software shop on top of everything else.
The story is usually that businesses don't want to commit to indefinitely expending their limited efforts maintaining software which isn't part of the company's core competencies. Most of the cost and effort of software happens after the first release is delivered.
> Enterprises have a business to run and don’t want to run a software shop on top of everything else.
It sounds like you mostly understand here. The biggest part of "running a software shop" they want to avoid is responsibility for support, bugs, fires, ongoing maintenance, and legal issues, of post-release software.
Dave's Pizza around the corner doesn't make a social media app, not because Dave can't figure it out, not because he can't vibe code one, not because he can't contract someone to do it, but because running a social media site isn't a core competency of Dave's Pizza. Instead, Dave uses existing social media sites, and focuses his efforts and passions on making pizza.
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#288I'm not sure security through obscurity is a great practice?
Not to mention, I presume the core bits of Cal.com's source code are already in place and aren't going to change significantly?
Like, this feels like a business decision and not a security decision
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
At risk of self promotion, I think more people should adopt something like the Ship of Theseus license ( https://github.com/tilework-tech/nori-skillsets/pull/465/cha... ). It's not obvious if this will patch the clean room hole in licensing, but I'd rather see it play out in court than assume opensource is just fully dead
I don't think you understand how copyright works. Copyright can only deny the right to make copies. If someone spends years using your software and they have learned a mental model of how your software works, they can build an exact replica and there is nothing you can do about that since there is no copy you can sue over. Said user is also allowed to use AI tools to aid in the process. What you want is an EULA, whic…
>I don't think you understand
Whether or not this is technically correct, a comment that begins this way is unlikely to be persuasive.
Re: Cal.com is going closed source
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have the means to develop in house. Why aren't they?
This is much less work (= cheaper) to develop in-house with AI now than before.
I don't think it's much cheaper. Writing some code to do some CRUD has always been easy. Getting to a proof of concept is definitely quicker. But creating something that can be relied upon in production? That's as difficult and time consuming as it has ever been.