Cannot activate Enterprise license

[Teiluj]

Not wanting to push this (but kinda at the same time )
Is this a "me" issue or something to do with the packaging of the app?

[james]

Hello @teiluj
Sorry for the delay. I did not get to your issue yet.

[james]

Hello @teiluj

We build Docmost from the GitHub source tarball, but the EE features (including /api/license/activate) live in a private git submodule (docmost/ee) that isn't in the tarball. The official docmost/docmost Docker image contains the pre-compiled EE code (verified: /app/apps/server/dist/ee/licence/license.controller.js exists there). Fix would be to repackage the official image on top of cloudron/base instead of building from source.

We had various cases where other apps shut down the paid version access without notice, leaving us with no way to push updates.
One example would be the recent change to @cal.com https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/15399/cal.com-closing-source
If they don't release the enterprise part for us to build a package from and dealing with those docker images has often led to more problems, see https://forum.cloudron.io/post/123514

So we got very hesitant to switch Cloudron apps like that.
Just for us to know, do you just want to try the enterprise version or do you plan to fully use it?

[Teiluj]

@james Thanks for looking into this - this is what I feared.

As far as I can tell, Docmost has not changed its licensing model in a recent past or at least not since becoming an app available on Cloudron.

Additionally, I have some vague recollection of similar situations with other apps on Cloudron (a quick search reveals apps like Baserow and Mattermost)

For now we are looking at trialing Docmost enterprise with the ultimate view to possibly adopt it for all the benefit and additional features it provides.
For example, things like OIDC is locked behind the (trial) license and it is not quite clear if/how we would connect it with Cloudron as an OIDC provider for now.

How has Cloudron approached situation such as this one (if any)? was it through direct contact with the dev-team? If so, would it help if I attempt to put you in relation with a relevant contact? would the best way be for the docmost dev(s) to contact support@cloudron.io directly?

I suspect that building the Enterprise version of Docmost would not get away from needing a valid license.
Also, I do not think that pulling a partly private app image conflicts with having an open source cloudron app package residing on cloudron gitlab does it?
Possibly it just requires an agreement and permissions between Cloudron and Docmost.

[Philip]

Hi @james, founder of Docmost here.

It would be awesome if you consider basing your build on the official Docmost image.

Since Docmost is self-hosted, we don't restrict where users can run the software.
We made the enterprise module separation of concern as clean as possible. It is bundled in our official build process and only gets called when an enterprise license is activated. It don't interfere with the core app.

Having this supported would make life easier for users who wish to use Cloudron and also benefit from our enterprise features such as SSO, AI, page verification workflows and more.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do on my end to facilitate. Happy to reach out any other ways you suggest.
Thank you.

[james]

Hello @philip and welcome to the Cloudron forum

It is great to have you here.
I have validated the mail address you used in our forum against your GitHub profile and thus added you to the App Maintainer group to signal to users that you are indeed who you are.

Changing the build from source to copy from the source image is a simple change which we could make.
The question we have is, why is it not part of the normal build from source, but in a private git submodule?
Like I wrote above, we had multiple bad experiences with for example @grist and @cal.com who suddenly decided to remove public access to enterprise features, even for paying users who self-host.
Since people rely on software and updates and are paying for them, these decisions are detrimental.

A short explanation would be great just to easy our minds.
In any case, we will switch the app to copy from source instead of building from source.

[Teiluj]

@james @philip Many thanks for both - much appreciated.

[Philip]

@james Thanks for being accommodating. I appreciate it.

I understand your concerns about the precedent set by the companies mentioned.

As you may know, the core of Docmost is OSS. However, we do have proprietary modules under the Docmost enterprise license. The enterprise modules contain our offline license validation system and cannot be made public for obvious reasons.

To reduce confusion and complexity in maintaining multiple Docker builds, we decided to ship both editions in a single image. Customers can upgrade or downgrade editions at any time, with no lock-in.

If a self-hosted enterprise customer chooses to host with Cloudron, they’re still a Docmost customer, and we have a contractual obligation to keep the software accessible to them. I don't see a world where it makes sense to deny them this right.

The goal is to make things much easier for both OSS and enterprise users.
I hope this helps.

[james]

Hello @philip

@Philip said:

The enterprise modules contain our offline license validation system and cannot be made public for obvious reasons.

That is what we also thought, all good.

@Philip said:

If a self-hosted enterprise customer chooses to host with Cloudron, they’re still a Docmost customer, and we have a contractual obligation to keep the software accessible to them. I don't see a world where it makes sense to deny them this right.

Great to read!

@Philip said:

The goal is to make things much easier for both OSS and enterprise users.
I hope this helps.

Yes, thank you very much.
We already have the PR ready to change the package https://git.cloudron.io/packages/docmost-app/-/merge_requests/10
Will be done by tomorrow.

[Philip]

Awesome. Thanks @james.

@teiluj Glad I could help.