Cal.com goes closed source after 5 years. Here’s why rising AI-driven security risks and vulnerability discovery are forcing us to protect customer data.
Open core, closed extensions. Not really clear how that significantly improves the situation. I doubt they’ll diverge the two code bases(?).
The vault symbolism is pretty bad. A software product is much different to a vault, and a sister-vault-product you publish the blueprint for anyway.
At the same time, we still care deeply about open source. That’s why we are releasing a version of our codebase to the community under the MIT license as Cal.diy.
While our production codebase has significantly diverged, including major rewrites of core systems like authentication and data handling, we want to ensure there is still a truly open version available for developers, hobbyists, and anyone who wants to explore and experiment.
Huh? I don’t get it. So the open product is an older, worse/different version/codebase? And they can do that without impacting their product risk because it’s different?
Open core, closed extensions.Not really clear how that significantly improves the situation. I doubt they’ll diverge the two code bases(?).The vault symbolism is pretty bad. A software product is much different to a vault, and a sister-vault-product you publish the blueprint for anyway.
Huh? I don’t get it. So the open product is an older, worse/different version/codebase? And they can do that without impacting their product risk because it’s different?