Bitwarden (Desktop) no longer free

Graphene1

https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611

Thoughts on this?

DeletedUser87

Graphene1 very concerning. I have been recommending BW to a lot of people, that decision truly sucks! Well, I guess we can't have nice things. Will be hard to look for an alternative that can be self hosted and has the same level of security...

Edit: on the other hand, doesn't seem so bad after all?
Quote from Kyle (from Bitwarden):

Hi, Thanks for sharing your concerns here. We have been progressing use of our SDK (software development kit) in more use cases for our clients. However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.

the SDK and the client are two separate programs

code for each program is in separate repositories

the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3

Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.

jackFang

I heard a lot about bitwarden and being praised by majority, but never used it. I suspected its too feature-heavy and will be monetized at some point. I recommend KeepassXC as an alternative.

Carpool7341

jackFang I like the ecosystem diversity for Keepass, but the fact that it's just a database file that needs to be synced between devices is an issue due to conflicts. Also, there's no support for shared vaults.

Hb1hf

DeletedUser87 seems like they're moving all the core functionality to the "code available, but not open source" SDK and leaving the GUI as open source because, well, the license won't allow them even if they wanted.

It's not a security issue (same quality control, same audits, etc) and it's probably not a privacy issue (the SDK source is still there for anyone to check, but not as many will since it's not free).

But it's not why many of us use it and recommend it, either.

DeletedUser87

Hb1hf no, of course that change regarding the SDK doesn't alter anything as of right now. My concerns are more of the "what's next" nature. Too many good FOSS projects turned into closed source junk over the years and it's a shame. I just hope that Bitwarden can handle the slippery slope they're on right now and at least keep the code open. The "free" is a nice bonus for most, but I still lean towards "it needs to be a necessity".

Stephan-P

I'd lean towards this all being a 'storm in glass of water'

Stephan-P

And if it turns out to be true, then a transfer to an alternative is easy: export CSV, import CSV.

I'm actually running two systems in parallel: KeePassXC/KeePassDX and MS Authenticator, making sure that both databases hold all credentials.

I've been a user (and translator) of Bitwarden in the past until I decided that I prefer to keep control of my own data not being on a third party's server.

DeletedUser87

Stephan-P that whole point about "3rd party server" is why I use Bitwarden (or to be more specific: Vaultwarden) in the first place. I have my own instance and the data is in my hands. Using KeePass would be a huge downgrade for me, since syncing a keepass db between 4 devices can be really annoying.

anon1

I guess you can use Proton Pass as alternative. If you like the Proton company heh.

cdflasdkesalkjfkdfkjsdajfd

Twitter answer by Bitwarden: "It seems like a packaging bug was misunderstood as something more, and the team plans to resolve it. Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model in place for years, along with retaining a fully featured free version for individual users"

Hb1hf

cdflasdkesalkjfkdfkjsdajfd oops someone had to go into "damage control" mode

fid02

Hb1hf Or it might've been a legitimate bug?

Stephan-P

KeePassXC supports sharing vaults through KeeShare: https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide#_database_sharing_with_keeshare

I wouldn't know how this would cooperate with KeePassDX.