Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

#71

Post by nextaccountic »

cortesoft wrote: post #69
Reubend wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because a license says you are not liable for anything doesn't mean a court will always uphold that.

if the license can't shield them, do you think that a blog post might?

Re: Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

#72

Post by nextaccountic »

liamgm wrote: post #54
_ache_ wrote: post #18

I just installed calrs, a recent alternative to cal.diy. It absolutely rocks! The only downside is that it requires me to activate STARTTLS as force-TLS-SMTP isn't supported (I had to check the source code). It’s young, very promising, and honestly, I don't know what I could ask for more. I also replaced Radical with rustical, and I gained free push updates. https://cal.rs/ and https://github.com/lennart-k/rustical A…

sadly it's one of the strictly viral license AGPL , i prefer the more permisive one

people are claiming cal.com did a bait and switch

AGPL (specially if you take external contributions) is the one license where one can't do a bait and switch

If anything, if people are concerned about companies doing a 180 on open source, they should demand more AGPL, not less

Re: Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

#73

Post by theturtletalks »

nextaccountic wrote: post #70
theturtletalks wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

are they actually removing features from the open source version?

Their docs say cal.fyi won’t have team features but my self hosted one does. They are a bit hacky. I think they also said they will stop publishing a docker image and that’s what I use to self host. I think I might just build an alternative over the weekend.

Re: Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

#74

Post by ValentineC »

miki123211 wrote: post #61

PSA: their Github repo history still includes the old, un-castrated codebase, and (IANAL), there's nothing in the license forbidding you from still using it. Adoption of the OSS version must not have been very high, otherwise I would have expected a Valkey / OpenTofu style, community-led fork.

> Adoption of the OSS version must not have been very high, otherwise I would have expected a Valkey / OpenTofu style, community-led fork.

I'm guessing battle-tested reliability isn't a priority for calendaring/scheduling web services, unlike Redis/Valkey.

It's probably cleaner for anyone looking to adapt the source code to point an LLM at it to extract some specs and tests, then build a new one from scratch.

Re: Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com

#75

Post by franga2000 »

Same code but with enterprise features stripped out. So much for that "we're going closed source for security"...

If you don't find the open source model sustainable and you've really tried, sure, go closed source, we'll understand. But please don't lie to everyone that it was all about security.

Post reply on HN