▲ 630 ▼ Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source (www.phoronix.com) submitted 2 years ago by AsudoxDev@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world 188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 87 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children) Vaultwarden updated link Open source version of bitwarden written in rust. Where is the foundation to support foss?!? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] r00ty@kbin.life 53 points 2 years ago (5 children) If they're moving away from open source/more monetisation then they're going to do one of two things. 1: Make the client incompatible (e.g you'll need to get hold of and prevent updating of a current client). 2: DMCA the vaultwarden repo If they're going all-in on a cash grab, they're not going to make it easy for you to get a free version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget option 3: someone writes a vaultwarden client independent of the closed-source crap. If you can write a server that fully supports the client via the documented API, then you know everything you'd need to do to make a client as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago That’s not a third option in the same list (things they are going to do), it’s an item in an entirely different list (foss responses to their actions). permalink fedilink source parent [–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't "dmca" the fork that was created while it was still open source. They could only prevent it from getting future updates (directly from them). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago If you mean they shouldn't. I'd agree. But, as has been seen a lot on youtube. "They" can DMCA anything they want, and the only route out is usually to take them to court. I mean I'd hope if they're going in this direction they will be decent about it. But, it's not the way things seem to be lately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago DMCA is a tool for suppression of free information. It doesn't require evidence that you've made a good faith effort to consider fair use or other legal complexity as it's meant to take down the information before that is settled in court, but most commonly used to suppress information from a person or group who can't afford to fight it in court. Microsoft's Github has a history of delete first without risking their own necks to stand up for obviously fraudulent takedowns much less ones with unsettled law like APIs/SDKs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 26 points 2 years ago You have your link formatted backwards. It should be Vaultwarden, with the link in the parentheses. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ghostface@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago This is by no means to a slight towards bitwarden. Solid product and community permalink fedilink source parent
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 53 points 2 years ago (5 children) If they're moving away from open source/more monetisation then they're going to do one of two things. 1: Make the client incompatible (e.g you'll need to get hold of and prevent updating of a current client). 2: DMCA the vaultwarden repo If they're going all-in on a cash grab, they're not going to make it easy for you to get a free version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget option 3: someone writes a vaultwarden client independent of the closed-source crap. If you can write a server that fully supports the client via the documented API, then you know everything you'd need to do to make a client as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago That’s not a third option in the same list (things they are going to do), it’s an item in an entirely different list (foss responses to their actions). permalink fedilink source parent [–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't "dmca" the fork that was created while it was still open source. They could only prevent it from getting future updates (directly from them). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago If you mean they shouldn't. I'd agree. But, as has been seen a lot on youtube. "They" can DMCA anything they want, and the only route out is usually to take them to court. I mean I'd hope if they're going in this direction they will be decent about it. But, it's not the way things seem to be lately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago DMCA is a tool for suppression of free information. It doesn't require evidence that you've made a good faith effort to consider fair use or other legal complexity as it's meant to take down the information before that is settled in court, but most commonly used to suppress information from a person or group who can't afford to fight it in court. Microsoft's Github has a history of delete first without risking their own necks to stand up for obviously fraudulent takedowns much less ones with unsettled law like APIs/SDKs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget option 3: someone writes a vaultwarden client independent of the closed-source crap. If you can write a server that fully supports the client via the documented API, then you know everything you'd need to do to make a client as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago That’s not a third option in the same list (things they are going to do), it’s an item in an entirely different list (foss responses to their actions). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago That’s not a third option in the same list (things they are going to do), it’s an item in an entirely different list (foss responses to their actions). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't "dmca" the fork that was created while it was still open source. They could only prevent it from getting future updates (directly from them). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago If you mean they shouldn't. I'd agree. But, as has been seen a lot on youtube. "They" can DMCA anything they want, and the only route out is usually to take them to court. I mean I'd hope if they're going in this direction they will be decent about it. But, it's not the way things seem to be lately. permalink fedilink source parent [–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago DMCA is a tool for suppression of free information. It doesn't require evidence that you've made a good faith effort to consider fair use or other legal complexity as it's meant to take down the information before that is settled in court, but most commonly used to suppress information from a person or group who can't afford to fight it in court. Microsoft's Github has a history of delete first without risking their own necks to stand up for obviously fraudulent takedowns much less ones with unsettled law like APIs/SDKs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago If you mean they shouldn't. I'd agree. But, as has been seen a lot on youtube. "They" can DMCA anything they want, and the only route out is usually to take them to court. I mean I'd hope if they're going in this direction they will be decent about it. But, it's not the way things seem to be lately. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago DMCA is a tool for suppression of free information. It doesn't require evidence that you've made a good faith effort to consider fair use or other legal complexity as it's meant to take down the information before that is settled in court, but most commonly used to suppress information from a person or group who can't afford to fight it in court. Microsoft's Github has a history of delete first without risking their own necks to stand up for obviously fraudulent takedowns much less ones with unsettled law like APIs/SDKs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 26 points 2 years ago You have your link formatted backwards. It should be Vaultwarden, with the link in the parentheses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago This is by no means to a slight towards bitwarden. Solid product and community permalink fedilink source parent