4 ms·
I think it makes sense to do this, mainly because Bitwarden's official server is AGPLv3. This'll help avoid conflict between the two.
by Daedren 4y ago
I think it makes sense to do this, mainly because Bitwarden's official server is AGPLv3. This'll help avoid conflict between the two.
- mdaniel 4y agoIt's Daniel's code (well, I guess and all those contributors, too) and thus can license as they see fit, but the whole idea was to have an alternative implementation. If Bitwarden had heartburn about a lighter-weight GPLv3 implementation existing, they're in for some bad news because there are currently 1200 forks still on the GPLv3 license I doubt very very seriously that there is overlap between the audience who runs Vaultwarden and those who want to start up a company that sells Vaultwarden as its backend to compete with Bitwarden
- ilyt 4y ago> I doubt very very seriously that there is overlap between the audience who runs Vaultwarden and those who want to start up a company that sells Vaultwarden as its backend to compete with Bitwarden Company selling password managment as a service might use the code to give their customers migration path to their service
- nugget 4y agoNow that they are venture funded, Bitwarden will try to restrict competition as much as they can. It's a familiar playbook. I wouldn't be surprised if Bitwarden has applied pressure behind the scenes on Vaultwarden to move in this direction, since the AGPLv3 license will make competition less likely (and VW shortsightedly even says as much). They're learning from Chrome/Chromium and others.
- Spivak 4y agoAnd it'll be easy too since vaultwarden implements the easy bits but the real value is the high-quality clients on every platform which aren't OSS. Can't be worse than LastPass tho.