• LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I love Bitwarden… I read the article, but is this something I need to feel concerned about? I also just started using their Authenticator app a few months ago, so this had a given me a pit in my stomach. What should I do?

    • RockaiE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      With what we know, there nothing to be worried about. The issue lies with the Bitwarden SDK, and not the Bitwarden apps or authenticator. The language is not entirely clear, but my interpretation is that they want to prevent people from using the SDK to create a Bitwarden app competitor. It sounds like they do want businesses to create their own, internally used client, and worded the TOS in a confusing way.

      • visor841@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        From what I understand there was also a bug involved that caused build failures without the sdk.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a minor, technical change to the license. It’s not a change we should be supporting but it doesn’t matter much. The real concerning thing is that this may signal a shift away from focusing on the value to the user.

  • federal reverse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    So is this a response to Vaultwarden becoming more popular?

    (As an aside: One of the reasons I trusted a semi-proprietary hosted app like Bitwarden at all was that Vaultwarden exists, theoretically allowing me to move there if necessary.)