This need not be the case, though! There’s an open source client on Android called Keyguard. I don’t think the desktop app was at all useful anyway. You can just log into your Vaultwarden through any browser. The desktop app is pointless.
“You may not use this SDK to develop applications for use with software other than Bitwarden (including non-compatible implementations of Bitwarden) or to develop another SDK.”
And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction…
Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it’s a “packaging bug” and that “Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model.”
Keepassxc? Vaultwarden?
Isn’t Vaultwarden used with non-free Bitwarden clients?
This need not be the case, though! There’s an open source client on Android called Keyguard. I don’t think the desktop app was at all useful anyway. You can just log into your Vaultwarden through any browser. The desktop app is pointless.
True, but the firefox extension is nice.
Keyguard isn’t open source. Have a look at their license. It just says “All rights reserved”.
The clients are free.
They now require a non-free Bitwarden SDK component. That’s what this whole conversation is about.
Could you ELI5 please?
“You may not use this SDK to develop applications for use with software other than Bitwarden (including non-compatible implementations of Bitwarden) or to develop another SDK.”
This is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve.
I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens.
And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction…