5 ms·

Is this not the server you are looking for? :-) https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/bitwarden/server

by julianh95 5y ago

imposterr 5y ago
It is. The parent and GP comments are wrong. Bitwarden is fully open source and can be deployed in a local environment.
- pricechild 5y ago
  Open Source, but not Free Software. Check out the custom licenced code within https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_license https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_li...
  - toyg 5y ago
    Yup, technically it looks like you can only use that "for the sole purposes of internal development and internal testing, and only in a non-production environment". Basically, they clearly don't police individual users self-hosting, but they maintain the right to knock on the door of companies. Redistribution is also not allowed.
  - imposterr 5y ago
    Sure, but the initial assertion was that only the client was open source which is clearly false, so I was refuting that. I did not speak the the FOSS nature of the software.
    - commoner 5y ago
      The Bitwarden server is source-available, but not open source. This is because, for example, section 2.3 of the license agreement (https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITWARDEN.txt https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITW...) conflicts with section 6 of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), titled No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. I think the specific terminology is what others here are disputing. The Bitwarden desktop and mobile clients are open source because they are under GPLv3, a license that meets the OSD. Vaultwarden is also GPLv3.
  - Flimm 5y ago
    That licence is neither open source, nor free/libre software. Almost all licenses that are open source are also free/libre, and vice versa. Exceptions are very rare, because of how similar the definitions of open source software and free/libre software are in practise. (By the way, the only widely accepted definition of open source software is the one published by the OSI, and the only widely accepted definition of free/libre software is the one published by the FSF, so those are the definitions we use.)
  - geofft 5y ago
    It's not "Open Source" except by the literal definition that the source is open to read (but by that definition, the software is free to access, too). It's just freeware / sample code. The license for this code https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITWARDEN.txt https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITW... says, > 2.4 Third Party Software. The Commercial Modules may contain or be provided with third party open source libraries, components, utilities and other open source software (collectively, "Open Source Software"). which implies that the Commercial Modules, themselves, are not Open Source Software. (Also it clearly doesn't follow the Open Source Definition or any other standard definition of Open Source.)

Is this not the server you are looking for? :-) https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/bitwarden/server

imposterr 5y ago

It is. The parent and GP comments are wrong. Bitwarden is fully open source and can be deployed in a local environment.

pricechild 5y ago
Open Source, but not Free Software. Check out the custom licenced code within https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_license https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_li...
- toyg 5y ago
  Yup, technically it looks like you can only use that "for the sole purposes of internal development and internal testing, and only in a non-production environment". Basically, they clearly don't police individual users self-hosting, but they maintain the right to knock on the door of companies. Redistribution is also not allowed.
- imposterr 5y ago
  Sure, but the initial assertion was that only the client was open source which is clearly false, so I was refuting that. I did not speak the the FOSS nature of the software.
  - commoner 5y ago
    The Bitwarden server is source-available, but not open source. This is because, for example, section 2.3 of the license agreement (https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITWARDEN.txt https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITW...) conflicts with section 6 of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), titled No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. I think the specific terminology is what others here are disputing. The Bitwarden desktop and mobile clients are open source because they are under GPLv3, a license that meets the OSD. Vaultwarden is also GPLv3.
- Flimm 5y ago
  That licence is neither open source, nor free/libre software. Almost all licenses that are open source are also free/libre, and vice versa. Exceptions are very rare, because of how similar the definitions of open source software and free/libre software are in practise. (By the way, the only widely accepted definition of open source software is the one published by the OSI, and the only widely accepted definition of free/libre software is the one published by the FSF, so those are the definitions we use.)
- geofft 5y ago
  It's not "Open Source" except by the literal definition that the source is open to read (but by that definition, the software is free to access, too). It's just freeware / sample code. The license for this code https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITWARDEN.txt https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE_BITW... says, > 2.4 Third Party Software. The Commercial Modules may contain or be provided with third party open source libraries, components, utilities and other open source software (collectively, "Open Source Software"). which implies that the Commercial Modules, themselves, are not Open Source Software. (Also it clearly doesn't follow the Open Source Definition or any other standard definition of Open Source.)