[robshep]

The "bait and switch" argument is based on the assumption that it was their strategy from day one? I think the company has evolved around the orignal code and they'd like it to be more profitable / sustainable.

Assuming they stick with openly auditable code (albeit not FOSS) then it's still than purely commercial options.

Nevertheless, my argument is that it should be cherished that we've had (guessing) best part of a decade of opensource BitWarden that cannot be taken away from us. The FOSS bit is purely temporal ... $now, the exact commit/release/tag/head when an FOSS license is in play, it remains FOSS - it's just the next commit isn't FOSS ... but there's no binding license that says it is/should/has-to remain for future commits.

Nobody's rights are being taken away here.

"Beleiving in FOSS" just needs to be more short-term focussed or prepare for continual dissappointment.