But for everyone else, the rust backend has a way smaller footprint than microsoft java C# and to selhost bitwarden without the paywall is an AGPL violation. Not that anyone will prosecute you for that but have some sort of honor code.
The original source has the paywall hard coded in because that’s what’s on the bitwarden site. If you remove that paywall you must provide the source for your modifications or else its an AGPL violation. The most common practice before vaultwarden was to sideload .dll files which was an AGPL violation.
look all my shit gets copyleft licenses but this is why people have jellyfin servers today and not emby ones. if you want to paywall features for self-hosters, you can’t publish your source. simple as
I’m not really following what you’re on about or what’s “materially the same thing”. Regardless,
People publish GPL and AGPL code with paywalls all the time. You could fork bitwarden and remove the paywall. But why bother when vaultwarden already exists, has no paywall and uses less server memory? Its basically the Jellyfin to Bitwarden.
But for everyone else, the rust backend has a way smaller footprint than
microsoft javaC# and to selhost bitwarden without the paywall is an AGPL violation. Not that anyone will prosecute you for that but have some sort of honor code.The AGPL has no clause like that.
The original source has the paywall hard coded in because that’s what’s on the bitwarden site. If you remove that paywall you must provide the source for your modifications or else its an AGPL violation. The most common practice before vaultwarden was to sideload
.dllfiles which was an AGPL violation.Windows,
Of course you have to open source your changes again with AGPL
Bitwarden is C# so it’s going to be
.dlleven on linux.wot if you publish your selfhosted fork that has the paywall removed?
This is allowed. The most common method though is to sideload some
.dllfiles which is an AGPL violation.yeah but materially it’s the same thing.
look all my shit gets copyleft licenses but this is why people have jellyfin servers today and not emby ones. if you want to paywall features for self-hosters, you can’t publish your source. simple as
I’m not really following what you’re on about or what’s “materially the same thing”. Regardless,
People publish GPL and AGPL code with paywalls all the time. You could fork bitwarden and remove the paywall. But why bother when vaultwarden already exists, has no paywall and uses less server memory? Its basically the Jellyfin to Bitwarden.