Comment on Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source

• pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Isn’t Vaultwarden used with non-free Bitwarden clients?

  source

  • bilb@lem.monster ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This need not be the case, though! There’s an open source client on Android called Keyguard. I don’t think the desktop app was at all useful anyway. You can just log into your Vaultwarden through any browser. The desktop app is pointless.

    source

    • 486@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Keyguard isn’t open source. Have a look at their license. It just says “All rights reserved”.

      source
    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      True, but the firefox extension is nice.

      source
  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The clients are free.

    source

    • pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They now require a non-free Bitwarden SDK component. That’s what this whole conversation is about.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction…

        Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it’s a “packaging bug” and that “Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model.”

        source
      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve.

        I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens.

        source