cofounder here

going closed source does not mean we are not fighting fire with fire

we are using a handful of internal AI vulnerability scanners for months now

being open source simply reduces risk by 5x to 10x according to several security researchers we are working with https://cal.com/blog/continuous-ai-pentesting-vulnerability-...

▲

henry2023 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t get me wrong but if virtually all modern software infrastructure lives on top of open source and they’re mostly fine then I’d imagine that you can make a scheduling webapp secure independent to if it’s OSS or not.

It’s OK if there’s another reason for this transition, just be transparent about it and don’t treat your users as children.

▲

righthand 3 days ago | parent [-]

They don’t owe you a complete list of reasons why they’re close sourcing their software. They are not a publicly traded company and no one (customers) actually cares if the product is open source or not.

▲

rule_of_cool a day ago | parent [-]

No-one cares if a product is closed-source, a lot of people do care if a product is open source, and really unless a product is truly unique (almost no product is) that is often the main selling point.

	▲	righthand 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Open source software is just a method for corporations to get free evangelization of their product. Companies are now saying “with the assault of AI it is no longer valuable to keep the code open.” They don’t need the handful of Twitter addicted software devs that will evangelize for them anymore because they lose too much by publishing the code. For small companies, the product is most likely the extent of their brand and offerings. Not worth the risk of going out of business, especially when competitors probably aren’t open source.

▲

OsrsNeedsf2P 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I've always used and advocated for Cal.com because it's open source. I understand you need to make money and this is no longer the GTM, but don't lie about it.