Cloudron Forum

@NCKNE Looks like a difference license:

• Docmost license
• Outline license

So folks would get a lot more flexibility in terms of hosting for others with Docmost, versus Outline which is very restrictive on that.

@fbartels Just to be clear, I'm using one license for one client and that client has multiple employees. If I was using Cloudron for multiple clients, I'd want to use a different installation for each client for sure.

It would be great – for business purposes – to have this tracked in the system somehow? It would certainly help me with onboarding a team!

Some apps, say ChangeDetection or DocuSeal, only allow one account per Cloudron (as far as I can tell), whereas others (like Cal.com) allow each user to have their own account. Is there a quick and easy way to see which ones are which?

okay! Once I added it to the Domins & Certs screen, and then went back into Kutt's Cloudron App Settings > Locations and then configured the alias for the shortlink domain (no subdomain in the box) it worked! Thank you!

@girish said in Certificate issues:

You have to add it in Cloudron as well. If Cloudron doesn't know about the custom domain, then it won't set up the reverse proxy accordingly. You have to add the custom domain that you added in kutt as an Domain Alias (see doc link above).

So sorry, but I'm still a bit confused.

In the screenshot provided for "domain aliases," the aliases are subdomains of the main Cloudron domain – eg site2.cloudron.club or *.sites.cloudron.club

If Cloudron is installed at my.domain.com and the custom domain I'm using with Kutt is dmn.net, what I'm a putting in the alias box?

Like, even in the screenshot provided for Kutt, it suggests you can use example.com/shortURL, but in the Cloudron docs there's not an example of using example.com in any of the boxes.

@girish said in Certificate issues:

@jordankrueger do you get this certificate issue on the domain in which kutt was installed? If so, do you see the cert error in other apps as well?

No. I only see this issue when attempting to utilize the link we've added in Kutt for the custom domain we've purchased for short links.

We set up the domain in the Kutt settings and then also set up the domain in our domain provider's DNS settings.

Is there something I need to configure in Cloudron to fix the cert issue here?

Certificate error when I add a link – and then try and go to the new link – in Kutt:

Your connection is not private

Attackers might be trying to steal your information from mydomain.nu (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more

NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

This server could not prove that it is mydomain.nu; its security certificate is from get.forkful.app. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.

Proceed to mydomain.nu (unsafe)

Anyone else experienced this? The event types flash onscreen for the user – I watched it happen over screensharing – and then it goes to a screen that says

Something went wrong [Details]
TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'slug')

@jdaviescoates said in trouble adding Google Calendar to Cal.com App Store:

I did have that wrong, but even after correcting it still wasn't working... on Firefox.

So what was it supposed to be???

I'm also experiencing the same exact thing – skipped the setup of the apps in the initial setup, and now I can't get the App Store to load to add them, no matter how I do it.

I'd love a way to add some text for each app to my users.

I work with a lot of very non-techy folks, and they aren't great about remembering how things work, or picking up the signals of a UI. So it'd be great to add a description to each app on the dashboard where I could say something like, "Log in with Cloudron" when that's an option. Or even describe that the service is to them, since the name/logo doesn't always make that clear.

Maybe this is just a bigger question than this forum is intended for but I guess for my use case, I'm just wondering how the copyleft requirement has to be executed. If I'm just hosting the package in its default state, isn't the source code on GitHub satisfying the requirements?

While setting up Cal, it asks you to choose between the AGPLv3 and an Enterprise license, and warns that with the AGPLv3 you can't resell the software easily.

I've read the AGPLv3 and also asked ChatGPT to highlight for me anything that might be an issue on that front. Can someone clue me into to what I might be missing?

Is there anything in this license that precludes me from selling access to my hosted version?

No, the GNU Affero General Public License Version 3 (AGPLv3) does not preclude you from selling access to a hosted version of the software. In fact, the AGPLv3, like other open-source licenses, allows for commercial use, which includes the possibility of charging for access to the software. However, there are a few important considerations to keep in mind:

1. Source Code Availability: If you modify the AGPLv3 licensed software and host it on a server, the license requires you to make the modified source code available to your users. This is a unique aspect of the AGPLv3, aimed at ensuring that users of networked software can access the source code.

2. License Compliance: You must comply with all terms of the AGPLv3. This includes providing any required notices and making sure that any distribution (including selling access to the software) adheres to the terms of the license.

3. No Restriction on Charging: The AGPLv3 does not place restrictions on the amount you can charge for providing access to the software. The pricing strategy is entirely up to you.

4. Pass-Along Requirements: If your hosted software includes AGPLv3 licensed components, you are required to make the source of these components, including your modifications, available under AGPLv3. This means that your customers could theoretically use your modifications to set up their own competing services.

In summary, you are free to sell access to your hosted version of AGPLv3 licensed software, but you must comply with the requirements of the license, particularly those related to the availability of source code for your users.

@jdaviescoates No automated reminders and also that it's just a single user instance.

... ADDING FOR CLARITY: Part of the whole benefit of self-hosting an app is that you don't have limitations like you do on a cloud-hosted version, right? Particularly that I don't have pay the absurdly high per-seat licenses of something like DocuSign (which quickly get out of hand if you need, say, 5 people using the app).

The tradeoff for self-hosting, in my opinion, is not having the most cutting edge features and all the edge-case features that I rarely use anyway.

I really start to question the value add of a self-hosting a DocuSign alternative when I only have one user to work with, though, considering that self-hosting an alternative does require some cost (server, and in this case, the Cloudron license). So to self-host I'm already paying more than two DocuSign licenses and I only have one user to work with. Why not just use DocuSign at that point, so I get all of its features and support?

Wondering if this will be less restricted than DocuSeal – in that case, definitely would love it.

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post – I couldn't find a bug report form.

In the /userdirectory settings for Cloudron, in the "Directory Server" box, there's a ? help link next to the "Enabled" box, but it goes to the wrong place in the documentation.

It points to

https://docs.cloudron.io/user-management/#directory-server

But it should point to:

https://docs.cloudron.io/user-directory/#directory-server