Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License
pogmommy@lemmy.ml 6 days agoI’ve been very happy with Vaultwarden+Keyguard
It currently doesn’t work with Vaultwarden. The Linux client doesn’t accept custom certificates. And the Android client is paid. It is a dead-end for self-hosting.
The license is also stupidly a single sentence. Which means that use could be nuked at any minute, and any money you use to pay the developer means nothing. If they wanted to kill the project today and nuke the repo, you have no legal rights.
Thank you for pointing out that the license is not FOSS, I hadn’t noticed that.
Awesome!
artwork@lemmy.world 6 days ago Thank you very much for the awesome project mentioned! I had no idea about it!
The marvel works great with Vaultwarden, too, it seems!
Though, Bitwarden system/clients are not so featureful as KeePassXC, for example, it’s a great alternative for a more adequate synchronization.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
But that’s not Foss, so u didn’t consider it
It is free and open-source on Desktop at this moment.
But it makes sense to pay for it, since Bitwarden is a constantly changing system and these projects based on it must always be up-to-date with their API changes, too. This is time and worry consuming, and should be compensated.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
License is: all rights reserved.
That’s free like in beer, and open like ‘allowed to inspect’ that’s not what most people mean when they talk of Foss.
pogmommy@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
Thank you for pointing this out- I’d managed to completely miss that it seems. That’s unfortunate
Sorry. Thank you for the clarification that you mean the actual term, and not just the fact of no mandatory payment.
I get what you mean, yet frankly, I do not believe such projects may be always free that are supposed to always be up-to-date for another system they have no official relation to, and keep it as a responsible hobby other people depend on.