> Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (to comply with AGPLv3. To clone in a private repository, acquire a commercial license)
The AGPL won't save you from folks modifying/reselling your software. And if someone was non compliant, are you going to pay the lawyer fees to prove it?
I wish companies would stop using "open source" as a growth strategy.
I've raised this with them previously but they were adamant their wording was correct. I have details of my conversations with them within my repo [1] where I store examples of licensing confusion.
I was thinking the same, but according to [1] some parameters like the hostname are hard-coded. So, that might be why you need to make the code public on GitHub (although still, technically you can still comply with the AGPL with a private repository).
The AGPL is more to clear up confusion and try and limit people ripping off our software.
Open source definitely isn’t a growth strategy for us. We’re huge open source fans, and do actually believe in what it stands for. We’re open source for a number of other reasons, such as longevity, privacy and genuine passion for OSS software (I’ve wrote more about this in other comments here).
However, yes, we are a company that is VC-backed, and so we have to make some decisions that are for the business side of things, and switching to AGPL is one way of cutting down on people trying to create rip off versions of our product.
Folks can still rip off/sell your software (even as a managed service) with the AGPL, as long as they share the source code of their version of cal.com
I think this is more a situation of a small group of individuals looking to fund their development of FOSS scheduling software by offering a hosted solution, rather than a company using open source to grow faster.
AFAICT, their goal isn't to monopolize a hosting solution for their software, just to provide a path of minimal resistance to normal people using their software, and fund their lives along the way.
https://cal.com/about lays it out. Looks like they're a team of 15ish people who raised a Series A, but it seems they've gone about it in a pretty thoughtful way (15 years of runway, atm)
I mean, when we read that page, it doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth -- saying this as somebody who's generally very skeptical of VC-backed FOSS. It seems like the founders have their heads and their hearts in the right place, to the extent that calling it a growth hack feels wrong to me, personally.
But yeah, in the long term I agree with you, it'll probably fall apart in the way you expect within 10 years. It's hard to outlast the financial interest of investors, even if they're you're friends.
This is pretty cool. They are outside of the US, but even if they paid typically higher US salaries, they would still have many years of runway.
It looks like there might be some funny business with MAU and Total Customers. MAU is only 3,500, but they somehow have 50k Total Customers? And they have a free tier? If only 7% of your paying customers use your product, they aren't going to renew. I expect that this doesn't include churn or is actually some kind of cumulative integral counting customer months or something.