4 ms·

hey dan, it's Peer here, cofounder of Cal.com. Thanks for pointing this out -- at the end it's about interpretation but we made changes to the readme to be mor

hey dan, it's Peer here, cofounder of Cal.com. Thanks for pointing this out -- at the end it's about interpretation but we made changes to the readme to be more clear around distribution: https://github.com/calcom/cal.com#setup https://github.com/calcom/cal.com#setup TLDR: of course you can clone the repo into a personal folder. When I had the conversation with you I was mostly thinking you are referring to distributing, which is only possible in a public repository. You can use the code for yourself on your private machine. This license is specifically targeted against BigTech who have a track record of taking MIT / Apache code, making it proprietary without giving anything back. See the ongoing Amazon Elasticsearch conflict. Plausible wrote a great article about this and we decided to go to AGPLv3 after talking to the founders: https://plausible.io/blog/open-source-licenses https://plausible.io/blog/open-source-licenses

ssddanbrown 4y ago
Hi Peer, to confirm again, anything below is my own non-legal-expert understanding/interpretation. So the new wording is as follows: >> 1. Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (or fork https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/fork https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/fork). If you plan to distribute the code, keep the source code public to comply with AGPLv3. To clone in a private repository, acquire a commercial license) This does not clarify anything and still (IMO) misrepresents the AGPLv3 on a couple of accounts: 1. I don't see how the AGPLv3 requires me to keep the source code public upon distribution, instead I would need to provide the source code (and adhere to the other terms of the license) to those I distribute to (Including via network use). Sure, if I was to distribute to the public I'd have to then provide sources in some form publicly, but otherwise not. Of course, in a more private scenario, the code could then be made public and shared by one of the users I distribute to. 2. This line still insists I have to acquire a commercial license to clone to a private repository. This was my original query as I don't understand why the license would require this, or how the license may differentiate between a private clone to my PC vs a private repo on GitHub as you suggested by your own interpretation. I have no issues with the AGPLv3 itself, it's a great license but I have an issue with licenses being misrepresented. >> This license is specifically targeted against BigTech who have a track record of taking MIT / Apache code, making it proprietary without giving anything back. See the ongoing Amazon Elasticsearch conflict. Then why have this line, containing a link to your sales page, in the development instructions of your repo? That line won't stop Amazon but the license terms are already set in the project license. The line, in my opinion, only serves as misrepresented license scare mongering. The Amazon scenario is more nuanced than that, they have forked to their own offering which currently remains open source (OpenSearch). They could effectively do the same with an AGPLv3 project such as yours, albeit with slightly different requirements, primarily ensuring the continued freedom of the code itself to users. The AGPLv3 does not specifically protect your SAAS business, it's designed to protect the freedom of the code itself. That's why elastic has since moved to non "Open Source" licenses which specifically prevent SAAS use, and why other projects use the commons clause.

ssddanbrown 4y ago

Hi Peer, to confirm again, anything below is my own non-legal-expert understanding/interpretation. So the new wording is as follows: >> 1. Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (or fork https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/fork https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/fork). If you plan to distribute the code, keep the source code public to comply with AGPLv3. To clone in a private repository, acquire a commercial license) This does not clarify anything and still (IMO) misrepresents the AGPLv3 on a couple of accounts: 1. I don't see how the AGPLv3 requires me to keep the source code public upon distribution, instead I would need to provide the source code (and adhere to the other terms of the license) to those I distribute to (Including via network use). Sure, if I was to distribute to the public I'd have to then provide sources in some form publicly, but otherwise not. Of course, in a more private scenario, the code could then be made public and shared by one of the users I distribute to. 2. This line still insists I have to acquire a commercial license to clone to a private repository. This was my original query as I don't understand why the license would require this, or how the license may differentiate between a private clone to my PC vs a private repo on GitHub as you suggested by your own interpretation. I have no issues with the AGPLv3 itself, it's a great license but I have an issue with licenses being misrepresented. >> This license is specifically targeted against BigTech who have a track record of taking MIT / Apache code, making it proprietary without giving anything back. See the ongoing Amazon Elasticsearch conflict. Then why have this line, containing a link to your sales page, in the development instructions of your repo? That line won't stop Amazon but the license terms are already set in the project license. The line, in my opinion, only serves as misrepresented license scare mongering. The Amazon scenario is more nuanced than that, they have forked to their own offering which currently remains open source (OpenSearch). They could effectively do the same with an AGPLv3 project such as yours, albeit with slightly different requirements, primarily ensuring the continued freedom of the code itself to users. The AGPLv3 does not specifically protect your SAAS business, it's designed to protect the freedom of the code itself. That's why elastic has since moved to non "Open Source" licenses which specifically prevent SAAS use, and why other projects use the commons clause.