It’s a lightweight self-hosted option for home and small businesses. Otherwise the licensing options are the same as in other self-hosted options.
Comment on Lightweight and flexible: Bitwarden lite self-host deployment is now generally available | Bitwarden
yes@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Does anybody have any information on features / licensing?
Looks like it’s basically a more lightweight self-hosting option with better db flexibility compared to the traditional deploy.
Based on the limited information available I assume it has the same feature-set as the old server and requires a license to unlock all features (e.g. TOTP support). For those comparing it to Vaultwarden.
kratomara@lemmy.world 3 days ago
bisby@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I switched to vaultwarden back when it was bitwarden_rs due to the crazy overdone bitwarden docker setup… and then started using some of the licensed features. I have a home organization that I use to share passwords with my family. So now I can’t switch back to bitwarden official (even lite) unless they provide me a way to handle that.
I’m not opposed to paying them, but I am opposed to subscriptions for access to something I’m hosting on my own server. So a subscription license isn’t happening. I don’t see a reason to leave vaultwarden at this point
yes@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Compared to other subscriptions their family plan is very fair. IIRC they even allow commercial use (small companies).
But yeah, I get your sentiment. Still a good option if vendor support is important.
EarMaster@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The Bitwarden family plan has been one of the best expenses (if you want to call it that, because it really isn’t that expensive) in our family.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Seconded. My option is that if it’s vital to my infrastructure or my family I don’t self host it. Let someone else deal with patching/maintenance/uptime.