glanceapp/glance vs screego/server
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of June 2026, glance and server both show mixed maintenance signals. glance was committed to 4 weeks ago with 12+ active contributors, while server last saw a commit 2 months ago with 7+ active contributors. glance is AGPL-3.0-licensed while server is GPL-3.0-licensed. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
glanceapp/glance →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; no tests detected
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 88% of recent commits
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 4w ago
- ✓12 active contributors
- ✓AGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
screego/server →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 94% of recent commits…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓Last commit 2w ago
- ✓7 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| glance | server | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 35,415 | 10,364 |
| Last commit | 28d ago | 2mo ago |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 326 | 13 |
| Has tests | — | — |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | — |
| Cycles | 0 | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? glanceapp/glance · screego/server
Ask AI about glanceapp/glance vs screego/server
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.