this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
625 points (87.3% liked)

Technology

59282 readers
3996 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
625
Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
204 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 128 points 3 weeks ago (25 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Keepassxc? Vaultwarden?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Isn't Vaultwarden used with non-free Bitwarden clients?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This need not be the case, though! There's an open source client on Android called Keyguard. I don't think the desktop app was at all useful anyway. You can just log into your Vaultwarden through any browser. The desktop app is pointless.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Keyguard isn't open source. Have a look at their license. It just says "All rights reserved".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

True, but the firefox extension is nice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The clients are free.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

They now require a non-free Bitwarden SDK component. That's what this whole conversation is about.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 2 points 3 weeks ago

And the whole conversation is about a 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."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Could you ELI5 please?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

"You may not use this SDK to develop applications for use with software other than Bitwarden (including non-compatible implementations of Bitwarden) or to develop another SDK."

This is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve.

I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)