I’m unfamiliar with bitwarden’s licence and skimmed through the issue and my understanding is:
- To use bitwarden API you must use SDK
- To use SDK you are obligated to be the official application, otherwise you violate the licence
- The official application is GPL but since SDK is somehow ‘separate program’ it is considered OK to couple with a more restrictive license
However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
This is something I completely fail to understand other that mental gymnastics to bend the truth enough to not look like they are not quite right
Edit: is my understanding correct? It looks like this is not the first project that becomes ‘source available’ after being FOSS in the past, as of lately
Ight, imma go back to KeePass
EDIT: Jesus FUCKING Christ! £59.99 for Strongbox Pro‽ I’ve got to get an Android at some point…
Scummy behavior from Bitwarden, especially the locking of the issue. It’s clear they have no intention of preserving their open source efforts now that they’ve gotten big enough.
Glad I don’t need to rely on this project. Get fucked, Bitwarden.
deleted by creator
I recently set up Vaultwarden as a backup, and I’m glad I did. Does anybody know an alternative?
I use KeePass and manually sync my password database file through cloud storage. I specifically prefer it over anything giving me web and online interfaces. I load from local file or on my phone from cloud storage.
Why did you go with KeePass over KeePassXC?
I don’t remember whether I serious considered that. I don’t see it in the Play store. I likely preferred original source.
Looking at the screenshots, it looks like a waste of space. A no go for me, given the alternative.
https://keepassxc.org/assets/img/screenshots/database_view.png
Compare that to the condensed, concise Keepass interface:
Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.
