No, that would GPL
Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License
thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks agocommercial providers can’t fork and sell it and give nothing back to the OSS community.
Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 weeks ago
thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
it literally says in the post that the license change affects companies who are repackaging and reselling bitwarden, but ok.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
But this is the post by bitwarden, defending their decision. AKA marketing.
Can you explain how bitwarden can be “repackaged and resold”, that would be stopped by that change?
Everybody can still fork/rename/publish the FOSS version which is continued to be available. Everybody can connect to vaultwarden…?
Buckshot@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Yeah this only makes sense if the builds start diverging from the open source code, extra features that are closed source.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
Everybody can still fork/rename/publish the FOSS version
Yeah, but there’s no guarantee the FOSS version will be the same as the closed one.
brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So basically they were getting undercut by people reselling the same a services under a different name.
And not having to do R&D