[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [directory-discuss] Evaluating different components of Bitwarden

From: Ian Kelling
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] Evaluating different components of Bitwarden
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 13:12:31 -0700
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 26.0.50

David Seaward <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi all,
> Bitwarden is a complete password management solution, it includes a
> browser extension [1] and an option to store data on the
> vendor/developers' eponymous server or a self-hosted backend [2].
> However, the backend is written in C# - last time I checked it was
> still non-free due to patent issues.

mono-runtime-sgen and monodevelop is packaged in debian, it runs c#, so
it seems patent threats are just theoretical and I think we can call a
C# program free software at this point.

> So the self-hosted server can't be
> listed on FSD. But what about the browser extension, which is not C#
> but presumably points to that server? (In this case the data is
> encrypted by the client [3], so the user is not required to trust the
> server.)
> Regards,
> David
> P.S. If anyone knows of a direct equivalent without these
> complications, I'd love to hear about it!
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:

Do we have a policy about software which depends on service as a
software substitute on the directory? I'm not sure.

Ian Kelling | Senior Systems Administrator, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: B125 F60B 7B28 7FF6 A2B7  DF8F 170A F0E2 9542 95DF |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]