So is this a response to Vaultwarden becoming more popular?
(As an aside: One of the reasons I trusted a semi-proprietary hosted app like Bitwarden at all was that Vaultwarden exists, theoretically allowing me to move there if necessary.)
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
223 points (98.3% liked)
Linux
7968 readers
96 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I never understood there hostilities. Surely the consumer space is not much of a money maker. They should focus on large enterprises.
Same!! +1
I love Bitwarden… I read the article, but is this something I need to feel concerned about? I also just started using their Authenticator app a few months ago, so this had a given me a pit in my stomach. What should I do?
With what we know, there nothing to be worried about. The issue lies with the Bitwarden SDK, and not the Bitwarden apps or authenticator. The language is not entirely clear, but my interpretation is that they want to prevent people from using the SDK to create a Bitwarden app competitor. It sounds like they do want businesses to create their own, internally used client, and worded the TOS in a confusing way.
From what I understand there was also a bug involved that caused build failures without the sdk.
Thank you for your reply. It does make me feel a little better. I’ll keep an eye out in case they continue to shift towards enshittification I suppose…
It's a minor, technical change to the license. It's not a change we should be supporting but it doesn't matter much. The real concerning thing is that this may signal a shift away from focusing on the value to the user.
Thank you for the reply. I was worried about the shifting. I’ll keep my eye on any other news that comes out with them. Sigh…
Yes. They're embracing the beginnings of enshitifi---- product degradation