Cal.diy: open-source community edition of cal.com
78 points
2 hours ago
| 5 comments
| github.com
| HN
FlamingMoe
1 hour 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-tea...

reply
Ethee
1 hour ago
[-]
I 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.
reply
loa_in_
1 hour ago
[-]
It 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.
reply
sreekanth850
46 minutes ago
[-]
I still remember when they launched here. "Opensource Alternate to Calendly" was their post title.
reply
fnoef
40 minutes ago
[-]
What do you want, it’s hard to resist VC money and “the enterprise offering”
reply
bluehatbrit
1 hour ago
[-]
Cal.com has always had an open source community edition, I've been using it for some time. Is this just a rebrand of that line?
reply
geoffschmidt
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
rectang
50 minutes ago
[-]
I'm unpersuaded by the assertion that closing the source is an effective security bulwark.

From that page:

> Today, AI can be pointed at an open source codebase and systematically scan it for vulnerabilities.

Yeah, and AI can also be pointed at closed source as soon as that source leaks. The threat has increased for both open and closed source in roughly the same amount.

In fact, open source benefits from white hat scanning for vulnerabilities, while closed source does not. So when there's a vuln in open source, there will likely be a shorter window between when it is known by attackers and when authors are alerted.

reply
hungryhobbit
39 minutes ago
[-]
If you believe they really did it for security, I have a very nice bridge to sell you for an extremely low price ...

Look, tech companies lie all the time to make their bad decisions sound less bad. Simple example: almost every "AI made us more efficient" announcement is really just a company making (unpopular) layoffs, but trying to brand them as being part of an "efficiency effort".

I'd bet $100 this company just wants to go closed source for business reasons, and (just like with the layoffs masquerading as "AI efficiency") AI is being used as the scapegoat.

reply
rectang
9 minutes ago
[-]
Who says I believe it? ;)

I'm just choosing to focus on the substance of the argument itself, which I think is risible regardless of who makes it and why.

reply
raphaelcosta
1 hour ago
[-]
It’s curious what they said in the email they sent me about the OSS version.

------

A few important changes to note:

We will no longer provide public Docker images, so your team will need to build the image yourselves.

Please do not use Cal.diy — it’s not intended for enterprise use.

reply
OsrsNeedsf2P
16 minutes ago
[-]
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
reply
swyx
1 hour ago
[-]
are there notable open source forks or open source cal competitors that go for the "just keep it simple" vibe?
reply
ezekg
48 minutes ago
[-]
Thunderbird showed up in the last thread: https://github.com/thunderbird/appointment
reply