A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
Hi guys, I've been working on a self-hostable web analytics platform since the start of this year after being frustrated with Google Analytics and Plausible.
I've packed a bunch of cool web analytics features into Rybbit, but I've tried very hard to keep the interface simple to use,
https://github.com/rybbit-io/rybbit
Check it out!
AGPL means they are licensing it to you, they are not bound by the license because they are the copyright owners.
That's misleading. While copyright owners aren't bound by their own license, AGPL Section 13 requires that when they run AGPL software as a network service, they must make the complete source available to users.
The AGPL was specifically designed to close the "SaaS loophole." Being the copyright owner doesn't exempt you from AGPL's network service requirements if you're distributing under that license.
This is flat out wrong. If you're the copyright owner, you're not licensing the code to yourself. The AGPL is the license under which they're making the open source version available to YOU. The version they run themselves is proprietary.
That's inacurrate. Licensing representation matters. If the cloud service is genuinely presented as AGPL-licensed, Section 13 obligations apply regardless of copyright ownership. However, copyright owners remain free to maintain truly separate proprietary versions under dual licensing.
It doesn't, because they're the copyright owners. Think of their software as dual licensed: They run it themselves under a proprietary license, under which they reserve all rights. That has nothing to do with the AGPL version that they license to you. The AGPL doesn't take away the rights they have as copyright owners, nor does it preclude dual licensing.
(Are you a bot? Your reply is written like ChatGPT, and it has that self-defeating logic that ChatGPT has sometimes.... eg. you wrote that you disagree with me, but then parroted the exact thing that I said.)