Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't, since you're not repackaging or reselling. It's classical FUD as it is with any other license change in popular software. There already is a subscription. You already need the subscription for features even if you self host. The moment bitwarden pulls anything too greedy or suspicious there will be hard forks, and since vaultwarden already exists as a drop-in replacement for the official server, the API is well-known, those forks would be a massive problem for bitwarden as a company. Realistically, the single question is the same as it's been before the announcement: do you want to pay for comfort and to fund further official development, then go for bitwarden, or to use vaultwarden and self host it, and get more free features on your infra. OSS projects can pull fucky shit too, and die just like any other commercial product. You gotta trust someone.
Preaching to the choir buddy, I am a FOSS fan and pretty much everything I run is free and open-source. Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.