• federal reverse@feddit.orgEnglish
    11·
    25 days ago

    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.)

  • LucidNightmare@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    25 days ago

    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?

    • RockaiE@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      25 days ago

      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.

      • visor841@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        25 days ago

        From what I understand there was also a bug involved that caused build failures without the sdk.

      • LucidNightmare@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        25 days ago

        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…

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      25 days ago

      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.