this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
627 points (87.4% liked)

Technology

60086 readers
2733 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 86 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

Vaultwarden updated link

Open source version of bitwarden written in rust.

Where is the foundation to support foss?!?

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 53 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If they're moving away from open source/more monetisation then they're going to do one of two things.

1: Make the client incompatible (e.g you'll need to get hold of and prevent updating of a current client).
2: DMCA the vaultwarden repo

If they're going all-in on a cash grab, they're not going to make it easy for you to get a free version.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You can't "dmca" the fork that was created while it was still open source. They could only prevent it from getting future updates (directly from them).

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 months ago

If you mean they shouldn't. I'd agree. But, as has been seen a lot on youtube. "They" can DMCA anything they want, and the only route out is usually to take them to court.

I mean I'd hope if they're going in this direction they will be decent about it. But, it's not the way things seem to be lately.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)