Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days agoThe api is implemented in Foss front&back end… I don’t know what you are talking about
Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days agoThe api is implemented in Foss front&back end… I don’t know what you are talking about
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 days ago
If there are two version of Bitwarden backend (closed and FOSS), and the closed one changes its API, and the closed Bitwarden apps also switch to the closed API, then what value does the FOSS API have anymore?
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
What is “the API”?
The API is implemented by the bitwarden back end.
The API is also implemented by the vaultwarden back end.
The open source bitwarden client does talk the current version of this API. The open source client can be forked, so there is without much effort a version speaking this protocol in this version and is FOSS. Just the name will be different. I guess “vaultwarden client” would be fitting, but what ever.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 days ago
Good question. When you have multiple implementations of an API, the API (the authoritative version) is what gives the reference spec that all other apps must follow.
If the authoritative version will be fully implemented only by the closed backend and in the closed apps, it will cripple the FOSS backend and apps.
This is a common tactic used by companies that want to sideline the FOSS options and slowly make them irrelevant.
Yes, today all apps talk to both Bitwarden and Vaultwarden the same way. Be on the lookout in case that changes.
nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
I’d totally see the risk if the clients were not available as open source. But they are. So I’m not.
They might diverge, but vaultwarden users will just fork. Nobody who is using official clients with vaulwarden will be “oh dang, now I have to buy bitwarden, so long vaulwarden, was fun…”