Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License
No, that would GPL
it literally says in the post that the license change affects companies who are repackaging and reselling bitwarden, but ok.
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…?
Yeah this only makes sense if the builds start diverging from the open source code, extra features that are closed source.
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.
There is certainty that the Foss version won’t be worse than current bitwarden client. Then those will diverge. So?
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
Yeah, but there’s no guarantee the FOSS version will be the same as the closed one.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
There is certainty that the Foss version won’t be worse than current bitwarden client. Then those will diverge. So?