DIdiptanu·Sep 10, 2022
Can this support Cal.com in the future? https://github.com/calcom/cal.com
In Tipi – A personal homeserver for everyonecalcom
cal.diy
TypeScript2022–2026
calcom / cal.diy
cal.diy
Scheduling infrastructure for absolutely everyone.
19Distinct people
24Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
50KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Scheduling infrastructure for absolutely everyone.
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
as a fellow bootstrapped founder, hats off to the NeetoCal team I'm personally using Cal.com, it's free and I'm very happy. I'm also very biased because we interviewed the…
zcesur used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
- storybookjs/storybook · linked in 2 of the same discussions
- supabase/supabase · linked in 2 of the same discussions
Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 9:01:12 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year24 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2022-02-11 13:18:47 UTC to 2026-04-22 06:29:16 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 11 | 1 | 10 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 5 | 1 | 4 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 1 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
5 sourcesHi 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). 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 cour
Read the rest
se, 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.
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
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
In Misrepresenting open source for business benefitThere is already Cal.com (formerly Calendso) [0] which is a more matured product. I do personally feel though Calcom's codebase is unnecessarily complex and bug-prone.
Nice to see new alternatives in this space. It would have been nicer to see a comparison with Calcom and some self-hosting guidelines.
[0] https://github.com/calcom/cal.com
In Open Source Calendly AlternativeCal.com, erstwhile Calenso, https://github.com/calcom/cal.com
The co-founders are nice people and I have a years worth of the premium version. Unfortunately, too buggy and people end up booking at the wrong hour, multiple-events gets reset when I change time-slots in another.
I haven't found something as simple as Calendly -- that just works. A commenter here once commented about a different alternative but that got bought out and shuttered. I'm still on the final look-out till end of this month (FEB), else going back to the Calendly subscription.
In Ask HN: Which open source versions of SaaS products would you like to see?