The code for the server is AGPLv3 https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/bitwarden/server , with only things in the /bitwarden_license/ director

The code for the server is AGPLv3 https://github.com/bitwarden/server https://github.com/bitwarden/server , with only things in the /bitwarden_license/ directory being proprietary. The code for the mobile apps is GPLv3 https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile/blob/master/LICENSE.txt The code for the clients is GPLv3 https://github.com/bitwarden/clients https://github.com/bitwarden/clients These are all copyleft... with a CLA (contributor license agreement). It's the CLA that allows them the ability to dual-license for the server. The VCs must really believe the company can produce a product based on Enterprise sales which would deliver a value North of $1B. And perhaps they can, as Bitwarden as we know it could be considered a strong beachhead to allow them to expand into other auth markets that have high value (hello Okta, Auth0, etc). But this doesn't seem that scary for Bitwarden users at this point.