[ringshall]

To be precise, their base software is Free software, licensed under the AGPLv3. The also distribute non-Free (and non-Open Source, and non-gratis) software.

Their base software has an artificial limit in terms of number of users and number of 'collections', which goes contrary to the ethics of Free software.

[xxkylexx]

This is not correct. All of Bitwarden source code is 100% open source. Even the few features that are paid. https://github.com/bitwarden

[shadowmint]

How can this be an issue if their base software is open source? Just recompile it with the numbers upped, surely?

[ringshall]

Gah, you're right. Their paid services and limits seem to be related to their SAS offerings.

[daveFNbuck]

Your passwords are stored on their server. You'd have to compile and run your own server, which is more expensive than the $1/month they're asking for.

[Xylakant]

So you’re paying for the service they offer: a hosted version. You do so because it’s cheaper than hosting your own. There’s no conflict at all with any open source ethic.

[daveFNbuck]

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.

[codetrotter]

> You'd have to compile and run your own server, which is more expensive than the $1/month they're asking for.

For people like me that already rent a VPS for their mail and website the marginal cost is $0 except for the time it would take for me to perform the installation and setup.

If the system is good and stable then the "cost" of the time that I would spend installing it on my server would be close to $0 when divided over the amount of time I use the software in the future.

[woolvalley]

I think another plus of buying their service is your supporting development of the software and saving yourself time, while a critical piece of your security software remains open source.

[tajen]

> which goes contrary to the ethics of Free software.

No it doesn’t. Free software doesn’t have to be free: Even on the GPL page it’s written that it’s even ok to sell free software. It’s only unethical if you equate OSS to software communism, but that’s another topic.

So anything that encourages the user to either use the freemium, then either dive into the code or either pay, is ethically correct. After all, you can download their AGPL, knock the limit, and redistribute. At which point you’ll be a contributor and while you’re at it, you’ll probably make a few other improvements: it means effectively free for contributors, which is awesome. See, it articulates quite well gratis, contributors and funding.

It’s only designed to make enterprises pay, which is good because they can “donate” huge sums for good software, so it funds the open-source community quite well. And it retains the qualities of OSS: You know what you install, you’re not tied to the editor if he dies, and if they stop improving the software, a contributor can take over their code and become more famous. Win-win-win.

[mitchty]

Boo, I was looking for something that had a cli and integrated with every browser as well as had an ios app.

I've not looked again recently but lastpass is the only thing I've found that fits those bills.

[xxkylexx]

- https://github.com/bitwarden/browser - https://github.com/bitwarden/cli

[mitchty]

I saw all that but it looks like you've got to pay a monthly fee for full access for their cloud storage. Not sure its worth the hassle of migrating to in this case.

[mitchty]

Asked my buddy what he was using and he pointed me to this: https://www.enpass.io

Seems to fit the bill a bit better. And might mean $12/year less though thats not a huge problem.

[fapjacks]

Maybe, but Bitwarden is open source, and Enpass is not. It's not important for people unless it is important for them, and in that case it's usually very important.

[frio]

It's $1/month to support open source software. That's not a bad price. You can also choose to use their hosting for free too; I was doing that for a few months before fully adopting it.

[mitchty]

I already pay lastpass $12/year. Not sure its worth the hassle to convert all my login information.