"over a decade ago, the repository has been licensed under GPLv2. And that’s not changing"

Well - people can continue the GPLv2 fork anyway. So ultimately what Cal.com would do here does not matter; that's the beauty of GPL in general. It is a strict licence. I think GPLv2 was the better decision for the Linux kernel than, say, BSD/MIT.

> That code is exposed to constant scrutiny from attackers, defenders, researchers, cloud vendors, and maintainers across the globe. It is attacked relentlessly, but it is also hardened relentlessly.

It is clear that there is a business decision with regards to Cal.com jumping away from discourse, but the claim that open source is automatically better than closed source, when it comes to security, is also strange. Remember xz utils backdoor? Now, people noticed this eventually. Ok. How many placed trojans exist that people are unaware about? Perhaps there are more sophisticated backdoors. Perhaps AI is also used to help disguise them. I don't think that merely because something is open source, means it is automatically good or better with regards to security. Can you trust software? In California there are recent censorship bills to restrict 3D printing further, allegedly to curb on plastic guns (but in reality sponsored by lobbyists from the industry). Can a 3D printer print out a 3D printer that is not restricted? Is the state sniffing after people via laws not also a restriction? I guess it is possible to ensure a clean open hardware and open software system acting in tandem. But you kind of have to show that this is the case. See this old discussion about Trust, on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1m4mwn/a_simpl...