Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source - eviltoast
  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 month ago

        Love Keepass. Love that I can sync it however I want. Love that there are multiple open source client options across several operating systems.

        • saddlebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Android syncthing announced they’re stopping development this year. Open source got fucked double today

          • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 month ago

            terrible day. There is a fork called syncthing-fork that is under current development. I hope both projects merge.

        • Bilb!@lem.monster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            1 month ago

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

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month 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.”

            • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month 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.

    • asap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Nothing in the article or in the Bitwarden repo suggests that it’s moving away from open source

      • coolmojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.”

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.