Comment on Bitwarden Switches to Commercial License

• Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  If I’m going to have to host my own infrastructure, I don’t want it tied to Bitwarden, given the new direction of the company.

  I fully support Vaultwarden though, and I wish them well.

  I’ll be going with KeyPassXC and Syncthing.

  source
• lemmyvore@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Vaultwarden (and all the client apps) depend on Bitwarden for the API spec. If Bitwarden introduces closed features in the API that Vaultwarden can’t/won’t implement, but the client apps do, it will split the spec. They can also introduce API license keys, which would render Vaultwarden mostly irrelevant.

  The only way for Vaultwarden to remain relevant going forward is to own it and split ways from Bitwarden. This would in turn mean that the FOSS client apps have to decide which to support. But I think the ecosystem is going to fragment eventually anyway, so the sooner every app decides which way they want to go, the better.

  source
• altphoto@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’m. Using Vaultgarden but its not clear if the Android app will still be available.

  source

  • pogmommy@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I’ve been very happy with Vaultwarden+Keyguard

    keyguard.dev

    source

    • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      But that’s not Foss, so u didn’t consider it

      source

      • artwork@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It is free and open-source on Desktop at this moment.

        Keyguard is a commercial app and unlocking a premium funds its further development and supports me (Artem Chepurnyi) directly. As of right now, only the Android builds distributed via Google Play store have main features locked behind a paywall, other distribution channels have a build with everything unlocked.

        Source: keyguard.dev/docs/premium/

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • pogmommy@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Thank you for pointing out that the license is not FOSS, I hadn’t noticed that.

        source
    • roofuskit@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Awesome!

      source
    • artwork@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

      source
  • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    There will be… Some fork at least

    source