1058
Bitwarden New CEO has extensive M&A, Private equity experience, Removes Transparency from its Motto (www.fastcompany.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
281 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I find this move concerning, and wish that the Founder had looked for a new CEO that shared his values rather than a Private Equity and Mergers Expert.

Furthermore, the change to the GRIT motto is worrying. Trust is useless without Transparency when it comes to code and security.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Why people bother with any corporate software when it really don't provide much more than completely FOSS alternatives

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Bitwarden is completely FOSS, both client and server

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Not if you are being strict with the definition of FOSS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Free and open source
    Is free? Yep
    Is OSS? Yep

    Is it full libre? I think not, right? And I assume that is your actual issue with it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    FOSS is a standardized term. As the Free Software Foundation defines it:

    Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software available under a license that gives users the right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software – modified or not – to everyone and provides the means to exercise those rights using the software's source code.

    You are not granted right to modify or distribute Bitwarden. You can inspect and use that to build your own. That is what Vaultwarden does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Well, the client code is liensed GPL 3.0 and server code is licensed AGPL 3.0, and those are both FOSS licenses. There are some additional commercial components licensed under a non-FOSS source-available license, but those are not required for the basic service. I guess you can't use the Bitwarden trademark either. I would still consider Bitwarden FOSS, although with a slightly limited (but not crippling) scope of the term "Bitwarden".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    So you wanna say it's Source-Available, yes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    All I say is that it's not FOSS in the strict sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Neither the OSI definition, nor the FSF definition require you to allow your trademark to be used freely, nor do they require you to only host FOSS software for your FOSS software to qualify as such. The client and server software published as GPL and APL qualify as FOSS by both orgs that define the term. Vaultwarden is better for self hosting specifically because it is superior software for self hosting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    It is FOSS.

    And securely hosting a password manager that is accessible over WAN links is beyond the capability of most users.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •