App Schichtplan requires license

Hi Devs and Schichtplan Developer,

I am concernd of the text “using a trial version” in MIT license app and furthermore that it is downloadable in the official nextcloud app store without mentioning this irregularity.

MIT license jugding from the Homepage (github license page) mentionend it App Store of Nextcloud.

Here a screenshot of the newly downloaded and enabled app:


@nextcloudTeam Please at least mark it as an irregularity.

Hi @florom

In the admin documentation it states that you can generate a free licence key…

But I agree with you, that this fact should also be mentioned in the description of the app in the Appstore.

Hi @bb77 ,

Thanks for the quick answer.

There is a difference between the nextcloud app license key and the admin page.
never the less if generating a “free” license on the (github admin) Homepage you have to register your Name, Email and probably domains.
Since I do not know if or which information is sent I refuse clicking the “here” button for the possibility to find out.

In my opinion this is not “free” anymore and should not be advertised as free.

I think the software is under MIT license. You can edit the code and exclude the registration out of the code. Also you can write perhaps an issue.

Looks like this app is only enabler for Gantt Schedule Time calendar. It has different license and require key. Enabler it self (nextcloud application) is under MIT license and for free.

Also you right, it (gantt-schedule-timeline-calendar trial/free key generator) needs a lot of data:

Hi @devnull ,

that is a possibilty. I think editing the code to get it free from registration does not seem right.

I will do that.

I did not check that but I think that makes the whole app non-free like in debian non-free.

Yes. It is not a free software. It is not MIT license.

gantt-schedule-timeline-calendar/LICENSE at master · neuronetio/gantt-schedule-timeline-calendar · GitHub
NEURONET Free License Terms (the name is a joke)

Modifications to the software by the Licensee is not allowed.
Distribution by the Licensee of the software or part(s) of it is
Software may not be transferred, leased, assigned, or sublicensed, in
whole or in part.

I wrote an issue to change it from NEURONET Free License Terms to NEURONET License Terms

1 Like

Hi @devnull and Nextcloud Team,

The description is completely wrong.

I do not know the terms of the Nextcloud App Store but it is the first one I encounter which is closed source and states wrong facts.

1 Like

Hi all,

I created an Issue on the issue tracker of the app.

1 Like

We are not owncloud this app should be deleted in the app store.

1 Like

Yes. Maybe can be cleaned up.

Why? Just don’t use it. There is also other non-free (as in freedom) software in the store. Or apps that connect to non-free services. Where would you draw the line? But I agree that the description should be more clear about it… Perhaps apps with “Anti features” could be labelled, similar to what the F-Droid Store does…

1 Like

Hi @bb77,

I agree with @DrJambus

this app should not be placed in the app Store. A MIT licensed app which acts as an enabler of a closed-source. I state that the developer of this app must know about this cause only MIT licensed apps are allowed by the closed source app and the main purpose of the app ist making a registration for the closed-source library.
This looks like deception.

Please enlight me with working examples (nextcloud 19 to 22)

1 Like

I am not an expert when it comes to software licences. If the developer is really doing something unlawful here, violating licensces or something like that, the app should be deleted until this is corrected. Otherwise I have no problem with “enablers” for closed source products being in the store, as long as it is clearly stated in the description, which it is not at the moment. If the dev adjusts the description of the app accordingly, I see no problem.

Btw. software can be Open Source and have a restrictions like that at the same time. Did you actualy check whether the code is public or not, or are you just claiming it’s Closed Source? I didn’t check, so I can not say for sure that the statement regarding “Open Source” in description is actually wrong. Either way, it should of course be clearly stated in the description that a registration is required.

What about all the connectors for OneDrive, Office365, Dropbox or other properitary services? They may be under AGPL but the products and services they are connecting to are certainly not.

@bb77 is right, if you build a PHP app for Nextcloud it has to follow our license (AGPL). Now yes, you can build in a limitation there - nothing in the license forbids that. But of course somebody can exercise their right to fork and remove that limitation. Not nice, if people want to build a business it’d be nice to respect that and not try to take their work for free if they want to get paid, but the license doesn’t block you.

If the php part is a connector to a non-php, external part, then there’s no requirement on the license of that external part - it can be anything including proprietary. You might not like proprietary (neither do I) but your only recourse is to not use it (or even write a competing, open source product).

Warnings in the app store - well, if the app store entry is really wrong, they only hurt themselves - it won’t make users happy to read one thing and get another. That’s not a good way to become popular for them :wink:

So yeah you can suggest to improve the description. But let’s try not to be too hostile to people who try to build a business around open source and Nextcloud, even if you’re not a fan of the way they do it - programmers also have to eat. Perhaps they can learn and improve and being friendly and supportive is always a better way to encourage people to learn than being a d*ck to them.

NOTE: I sadly didn’t have much time so I didn’t look into the app and details, so take my words above as a more general statement. If the app or its description is written to deceive or steals user data etc, I wouldn’t know and obviously at that point we’re talking malice, not a genuine mistake, and it’s entirely fair to be more upset than friendly :see_no_evil:


Hello everyone,

first off all im sorry for this confusion, this was not my intent. I have deleted the app from the Nextcloud app store and i will update the github description to prevent further missunderstanding.

The used calendar in question was, after a long search, the best fit for the use in my app but im open to any suggestions for alternatives as i would like to continue to develop the Shifts-App.

Furthermore i would also like to point out that the creator for the calendar states that if it is used in a non-commercial projekt the calendar can be used in MIT-Licensed projects which, after personal research is a AGPLv3+ compatible License.

Best Regards

Fabian Kirchesch


I am the author of the gantt-schedule-timeline-calendar library and I didn’t know that someone was using my work this way.

I believe the nextcloud company is benefiting from this project so it is not non-commercial.
You must read non-standard licenses carefully to avoid this kind of situations.
You should check their licenses before using someone else’s software in your project.

Hi all,


I want to apologize. Reading this comment my critic was too harsh. My personal dislike of proprietary software (which of course I have to use too) got into my writing and I want explicitly withdraw my statements that “the developer of this app must know about this” and “This looks like deception”.

I think you really wanted to make an useful app and I encourage you go on. Never the less I think it took a turn for the better cause this confusion lead to clarifing a lot in the early stage of development.


Yes, I did. Yes, at second thought something like that could be done but I personally fear that once this line is crossed something like owncloud will happen. Last but not least I do not care about connectors as long as the software which is proprietary does not run under my jurisdiction.
(Never the less I am a home user who installs nearly every app just for fun)


The former title and text of your license (“NEURONET Free License Terms”) can lead to misunderstanding.
Reading this, your comments on github and part of the license (29.10.2021) “If no commercial license has been purchased, the library may only be used by non-profit companies that may not earn or derive any other benefits (direct or indirect) in any way.” I doubt that there is really a way you would allow to use the library “for free”.

@florom The content and title of the license have been changed today to avoid confusion. You chose the old name (from the old commit?) And the rules from the new commit, that is, it turns out that you are selective and you choose the context to suit the purpose of the statement. I don’t mind if you work on something for many years, spending a lot of time on it and not charging a penny for it - that’s your business. This is a matter for each individual. Anyway, I have to pay bills and I have to eat too, so don’t complain that someone will not get something for free because this approach is childish.

By the way this is the first mail to the author of app so I don’t believe in misunderstanding in this case.

I’ve updated the license.

Remember, however, that the free license is only for non-commercial projects - you cannot derive any benefits (even if not direct) from this project.