- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
This is an important issue IMO that needs to be addressed and the official response by Bitwardens CTO fails to do so.
There is not even a reason provided why such a proprietary license is deemed necessary for the SDK. Furthermore this wasn’t proactively communicated but noticed by users. The locking of the Github Issue indicates that discussion isn’t desired and further communication is not to be expected.
It is a step in the wrong direction after having accepted Venture Capital funding, which already put Bitwardens opensource future in doubt for many users.
This is another step in the wrong direction for a company that proudly uses the opensource slogan.
Daniel García, owner of the Vaultwarden repo, has recently taken employment for Bitwarden.
The plot thickens.
Honestly, if he can replace the current Bitwarden BE w/ Vaultwarden, that would be awesome! The last time I looked at the Bitwarden self-hostable BE, it was super heavy, which is the entire reason I was interested in Vaultwarden.
I’m running a couple of Vaultwarden instances, and it would be really nice if Bitwarden employed Garcia to improve the Rust backend. But as the bitter cynic I am, I guess it is an effort to shut down and control as much of the open source use of Bitwarden as possible.
The worst case, someone will most likely fork Vaultwarden and we can still access it with Keyguard on mobile and the excellent Vaultwarden web interface :)
And I am an ardent optimist, hence why I see it as a good thing.
But yes, worst case someone will fork it, and I’ll probably use that fork.
