5 ms·
From the docs, "It is strictly recommended for personal, non-production use." Wow what a 180 from just a year ago when their blog said, "For companies that han
by FlamingMoe 5mo ago
From the docs, "It is strictly recommended for personal, non-production use."
Wow what a 180 from just a year ago when their blog said, "For companies that handle sensitive information, deploying open-source scheduling software on-premises can offer an extra layer of security. Unlike cloud services controlled by external vendors, on-prem installations let teams maintain full ownership of their infrastructure. " ¹
I just cannot trust a company that does a bait and switch like this.
¹ https://cal.com/blog/open-source-scheduling-empower-your-team-with-customizable-features https://cal.com/blog/open-source-scheduling-empower-your-tea...
- hrimfaxi 5mo ago[dead]
- Ethee 5mo agoI think this is less a bait and switch and more just a legal liability shield. They're not saying you 'cant' use it that way. They just don't recommend you do, and they won't support you at all for doing so. Which I think is completely fair. Also, these two things aren't in contradiction. Deploying on prem does offer more security, but then it's up to you to use it correctly.
- loa_in_ 5mo agoIt being open source also allows you to actually have a read of the software and guarantee things yourself, which is the harder better path anyway.
- tecoholic 5mo agoThis actually makes me wonder if cal.com has had a security breach in their hosted offering that they are not disclosing.
- Reubend 5mo agoBut the OSS license already absolves them of responsibility. This might just be to set the tone that security fixes won't be prioritized to the standard that they used to be.
- cortesoft 5mo agoYou seem really confident that an OSS license would protect them from liability… what is that confidence based on?
- Reubend 5mo agoIt's a straightforward MIT license: https://github.com/calcom/cal.diy/blob/main/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.
- liamgm 5mo agoThis is good , switching from viral license to more corporate friendly licensig
- cortesoft 5mo agoJust because a license says you are not liable for anything doesn't mean a court will always uphold that.
- nextaccountic 5mo agoif the license can't shield them, do you think that a blog post might?
- sreekanth850 5mo agoI still remember when they launched here. "Opensource Alternate to Calendly" was their post title.
- fnoef 5mo agoWhat do you want, it’s hard to resist VC money and “the enterprise offering”
- spiderfarmer 5mo agoThat's why I'm worried about Laravel taking on a huge sum.
- theturtletalks 5mo agoNot 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.
- pastel8739 5mo agoAre you really claiming you would rather the project get abandoned?
- sreekanth850 5mo agoProblem is using opensource as GTM strategy, to get developer contribution, traction and then say fuckoff.
- nextaccountic 5mo agoare they actually removing features from the open source version?
- theturtletalks 5mo ago