61–70 of 75 posts
Adoption of the OSS version must not have been very high, otherwise I would have expected a Valkey / OpenTofu style, community-led fork.
As a former cal.com advocate, I am now going to be switching my two companies to cal.diy or a similar alternative and canceling my cal.com subscriptions. I am now actively rooting for cal.com to go out of business now as a cautionary tale for any company thinking about taking open source projects proprietary. FOSS || GTFO
If you are looking for an alternative then please take a look at NeetoCal https://neeto.com/cal . It's closed source though. Disclosure: I'm the CEO of NeetoCal.
I perceive and classify your business model as a product optimization race-to-the-bottom model, if it makes sense. Have you considered or are currently working in the Field Service Management (NeetoService) space? Perhaps an ERP (NeetoERP)? Honestly curious because they're both sorely needed.
Thanks again for your AMA-ability. ;)
Wait, I didn't even realize Cal.diy is owned by Cal.com. It seems like they're trying to get ahead of the open source community forking by doing this themselves
How curious. Are they trying to throw security shade on running open source? Very odd.
As a former cal.com advocate, I am now going to be switching my two companies to cal.diy or a similar alternative and canceling my cal.com subscriptions. I am now actively rooting for cal.com to go out of business now as a cautionary tale for any company thinking about taking open source projects proprietary. FOSS || GTFO
If you are looking for an alternative then please take a look at NeetoCal https://neeto.com/cal . It's closed source though. Disclosure: I'm the CEO of NeetoCal.
I would only pay for something open knowing I have the freedom to self host if I ever need to.
As a former cal.com advocate, I am now going to be switching my two companies to cal.diy or a similar alternative and canceling my cal.com subscriptions. I am now actively rooting for cal.com to go out of business now as a cautionary tale for any company thinking about taking open source projects proprietary. FOSS || GTFO
You might want to double-check the cal.diy maintainer before your wish is granted..
I only pay for hosted software that gives me the freedom to easily leave and lose no features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem really confident that an OSS license would protect them from liability… what is that confidence based on?
It's a straightforward MIT license: https://github.com/calcom/cal.diy/blob/main/LICENSE > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you want, it’s hard to resist VC money and “the enterprise offering”
Not impossible though, I run a directory of open-source alternatives and rarely do you see what Cal.com did. Projects gets abandoned yes, but a pure bait and switch like this really grinds my gears. This is from someone who is self hosting Cal.com right now and now they are going to strip even more features.