Oh, for fuck’s sake. Can we have a decent password manager that isn’t tied to a browser or company? I pay for Bitwarden. I’m not being cheap. But open source is more secure. We can look at the code ourselves if there’s a concern.
Keepass: Am I a joke to you?
Keepassxc? Vaultwarden?
Isn’t Vaultwarden used with non-free Bitwarden clients?
Nothing in the article or in the Bitwarden repo suggests that it’s moving away from open source
It is a license problem. The license condition of the SDK which is required to build the client app change to limit the usage of it. The new license states that you can only use the Bitwarden SDK for Bitwarden. It is against the Freedoom-0 of the Free Software Foundation. The limitation of English language is that it is hard to differentiate between Free (as in Free bear) and Free (as in Freedoom). Also open source which could mean complaining with FOSS and that source is available. This been unfortunately have been abused before.
From the article, it’s a packaging bug, not a change in direction.
Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it’s a “packaging bug” and that “Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model.”
I was referring to this which started it all.
Here is the code in question. Basically, it’s a source-available, but not FOSS internal SDK, with the following language:
The password manager SDK is not intended for public use and is not supported by Bitwarden at this stage. It is solely intended to centralize the business logic and to provide a single source of truth for the internal applications. As the SDK evolves into a more stable and feature complete state we will re-evaluate the possibility of publishing stable bindings for the public. The password manager interface is unstable and will change without warning.
So I think the “bug” here is in not linking the original repo in the NPM package, and there’s a decent chance that this internal SDK will become FOSS in the future once it stabilizes. That said, it’s currently not FOSS, but it’s too early IMO to determine whether Bitwarden is moving in a non-FOSS direction, or if they’re just trying to keep things simple while they do some heavy refactoring to remove redundancy across apps.
Given their past, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll be making sure I have regular backups in case things change.
EDIT: The article has been updated and it was described as a “packaging bug” and not an intended change.
How many times do I need to pack up and move to the next “best option”
Sadly as many times as needed, complacency is how these companies get “loyal customers” who are willing to put up with bs
In this case, zero, because it’s a packaging bug, not an actual change in direction. Read the update on the article:
Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it’s a “packaging bug” and that “Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model.”
Next time, before jumping to conclusions, wait a day or two and see if the project says something.
I really hope that this is actually the case, but I am not very optimistic. This doesn’t seem to be a mistake. They intentionally move functionality of their clients to their proprietary SDK library. The Bitwarden person stated this in the Github issue and you can also check the commit history. Making that library a build-time dependency might actually have been a mistake. That does not change the fact, that the clients are no longer useful without that proprietary library going forward. Core functionality has been move to that lib. I really don’t care if they talk to that library via some protocol or have it linked at build time. I wouldn’t consider this open source, even if that client wrapper that talks to that library technically is still licensed under GPLv3.
They intentionally move functionality of their clients to their proprietary SDK library.
Proprietary is a strong word IMO. Here’s the repo, it’s not FOSS, but it is source available. It’s entirely possible they make it more open once it stabilizes, but it’s also possible they make it less open as well. It’s still early, so we don’t know what the longer term plans look like.
I don’t think we should be panicking just yet, but I’ll certainly be checking back to see what happens once this internal refactor is finished, and I’ll be making some more regular backups just in case they are, in fact, trying to take it proprietary. I don’t think that’s the case (why would they? I don’t see the benefit here…), but I guess we’ll see.
Proprietary is a strong word IMO. Here’s the repo, it’s not FOSS, but it is source available.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “proprietary”. I guess having the source to look at is better than nothing, but it still leaves me uneasy. Their license lets them do anything they want (ignoring that - as it stands - their license is void due to the linkage with GPLv3 code, but they said they want to fix that). I have no idea what their plan is. I don’t think it is in their best interest to go the route they appear to be going. Having truly open source clients seems to be a selling point for quite a few customers. But what do I know…
Agreed. If they end up not making this component FOSS, I’ll probably leave and take my paltry $10/year with me (which I don’t need to pay since the features I use are all in the free version). But I’ll give them a year or so to work out whatever refactoring they’re doing before making that call, I’m certainly not going to jump ship just because a new component is merely source-available.
Goddammit. It’s getting to the point I’m going to have to figure out how to write my own app for this.
It shouldn’t even be that complex…
I might be mistaken, but ultimately a password manager is basically nothing more than a database of passwords in an encrypted zip file, right? That could entirely be self-hosted with off the shelf open source applications stringed together.
All you’d need is a nice UI stringing it all together.Edit: I’m not sure why people are downvoting me. Is that not what a password manager essentially is?
I see it as it’s easy to self host. But I’m not skilled nor rich enough to guarantee the availability of it. I don’t want to be stuck on a holiday without my passwords because my server back home died from black out or what have you.
I pay for bitwarden and the proton mail package to keep the password management market a bit more competitive and it actually works out cheaper. It would be nice to have protons anonymous emails built in, but I can live with it.
But I might have to reconsider if Bitwarden is going a different direction that what I’m paying for.
That is the bare minimum of a password manager like Bitwarden.
Yup, thanks. Was thinking along these same lines.
600 upvotes and only 10 downvotes on literal fake news. I wish readers were less lazy, it’s very frustrating.
Edit: made my statement a bit less toxic. I was mad.
How is it fake news? They are moving functionality into a proprietary SDK and have a whole framework ready to get around the GPL.
deleted by creator
Yes.
To me that just like an excuse for the current mess. Did you read the original GitHub issue? Their CTO also seems to have questionable ideas about the GPLv3.
Vaultwarden updated link
Open source version of bitwarden written in rust.
Where is the foundation to support foss?!?
This is by no means to a slight towards bitwarden. Solid product and community
Great, I’ve just started to use it last week 🤡
Keepass vault synced over syncthing.
I keep not regretting it.
This is incredible
Right next to each other lol
Syncthing fork seems to still be under active development
Well this ain’t good. I don’t really feel like switching apps.
sigh
I like pass and used it for a while, but sharing passwords with it wasn’t nearly as straightforward as it is with bitwarden.
