Bitwarden Dual License Model
本文为原文前 6,000 字符的节选翻译，完整内容请查看原文。
Starting in the next release, the Bitwarden apps published to the various stores will be the commercially licensed builds. No action is needed, and the apps will work exactly as they do today.
从下一个版本开始，发布到各个应用商店的 Bitwarden 应用程序将采用商业许可版本。用户无需进行任何操作，应用程序的功能将与今天完全一致。
If you have any questions, please ask them in this thread. Thanks all!
如果您有任何疑问，请在此帖中提出。谢谢大家！
EDIT: You can still read, audit, and contribute to the codebase on GitHub, and that isn’t changing. The apps we release are built from the code in those repositories.
编辑：您仍然可以在 GitHub 上阅读、审计和贡献代码库，这一点不会改变。我们发布的应用程序正是基于这些存储库中的代码构建的。
the Bitwarden apps published to the various stores will be the commercially licensed builds
发布到各个应用商店的 Bitwarden 应用程序将采用商业许可版本。
Will the Portable Desktop App link on Bitwarden’s Download Page download a build that is commercially licensed or OSS licensed?
Bitwarden 下载页面上的便携式桌面应用程序链接下载的是商业许可版本还是开源（OSS）许可版本？
What differences will exist between the two parallel versions?
这两个并行版本之间会存在什么差异？
What differences will exist between the two parallel versions?
这两个并行版本之间会存在什么差异？
Some future components will be published under the commercial license and will exist only in that build. Newly developed features will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for which license applies to them.
未来的一些组件将以商业许可发布，并仅存在于该版本中。新开发的功能将根据具体情况评估其适用的许可类型。
Will the Portable Desktop App link on Bitwarden’s Download Page download a build that is commercially licensed or OSS licensed?
Bitwarden 下载页面上的便携式桌面应用程序链接下载的是商业许可版本还是开源（OSS）许可版本？
That’s a great question. I’ll work to get that information.
这是一个很好的问题。我会设法获取相关信息。
Edit: The download page will also direct link to the commercial license.
编辑：下载页面也将直接链接到商业许可版本。
Some future components will be published under the commercial license and will exist only in that build.
未来的一些组件将以商业许可发布，并仅存在于该版本中。
Ahhh, so the word “current” is doing some heavy lifting in the following statement:
啊，看来“当前”这个词在以下声明中承担了很重的分量：
But will the new features (those excluded from the GPLv3 OSS licensed builds) still be open source?
但是，新功能（那些被排除在 GPLv3 开源许可版本之外的功能）仍然会是开源的吗？
@RyanL Given that there are already many features that are only unlocked for Premium subscriptions, will there now be up to four levels of functionality (as shown in the table below), and if so, will there be up to four different pricing tiers (including at least one “Free” option)?
@RyanL 鉴于已经有许多功能仅针对高级订阅解锁，现在是否会有多达四个功能级别（如下表所示），如果是这样，是否会有多达四个不同的定价层级（包括至少一个“免费”选项）？
Direct downloads from the Download the Bitwarden Password Manager App for iPhone, Android, Chrome, Safari, and More | Bitwarden page will also be under the commercial license.
从“下载适用于 iPhone、Android、Chrome、Safari 等平台的 Bitwarden 密码管理器应用程序 | Bitwarden”页面进行的直接下载也将采用商业许可。
But will the new features (those excluded from the GPLv3 OSS licensed builds) still be open source?
但是，新功能（那些被排除在 GPLv3 开源许可版本之外的功能）仍然会是开源的吗？
Yes, Bitwarden continues development of open source code under GPLv3. Code under the commercial license is just as viewable and transparent on GitHub. This licensing model provides additional legal protection for select features.
是的，Bitwarden 继续在 GPLv3 下开发开源代码。商业许可下的代码在 GitHub 上同样可见且透明。这种许可模式为特定功能提供了额外的法律保护。
This concerns me quite a bit tbh. It feels like the standard: Open Source → Semi Opensource → Open Source discontinued Rugpull quite a few companies have been doing lately. I especially got hit by this with MinIO, so I’m quite careful what I use now because MinIO has been a huge pain and switching from Bitwarden would be too.
老实说，这让我非常担心。这感觉像是最近许多公司都在采用的标准套路：开源 → 半开源 → 停止开源的“撤资陷阱”（Rugpull）。我之前在 MinIO 上就吃过亏，所以我现在对使用的工具非常谨慎，因为 MinIO 带来的麻烦很大，而从 Bitwarden 迁移也会同样痛苦。
I both pay for Bitwarden (although I don’t use any premium features. I got it to support Bitwarden so it can continue being an open source project. With the price increase I was already considering cancelling as I don’t use the premium stuff and with this it gives me even more reason to do so) but I also have Vaultwarden instances self-hosted for various projects to work in teams. Both are essential to me and I want both to work equally well. I currently neither plan to switch my personal Bitwarden to self hosted nor would I ever consider moving my self hosted instances to your servers.
我既为 Bitwarden 付费（尽管我没有使用任何高级功能。我付费是为了支持 Bitwarden，让它能继续作为一个开源项目存在。随着价格上涨，我已经在考虑取消订阅，因为我不用高级功能，而这件事给了我更多取消的理由），同时我也为各种团队项目自托管了 Vaultwarden 实例。这两者对我来说都至关重要，我希望它们都能同样出色地工作。我目前既不打算将个人 Bitwarden 切换到自托管，也绝不会考虑将我的自托管实例迁移到你们的服务器上。
In any case Bitwarden will now be put on the list of things I will need to watch its development more closely in case this goes south.
无论如何，Bitwarden 现在已被列入我需要密切关注其发展的名单中，以防情况恶化。
Edit: I just saw in the comments that it was noted that it will be decided on case by case basis on what gets developed. Thats good for now I guess, yet the other questions remain open. (Ig it implicitly answers some other questions e.g. the self-hosting one too, but think of them more in the long run)
编辑：我刚在评论中看到，关于开发什么功能将根据具体情况决定。我想目前这样还不错，但其他问题仍然悬而未决。（我想这隐晦地回答了一些其他问题，例如自托管的问题，但从长远来看，还是需要多加考虑。）
While this might seem benign, Bitwarden would be well advised to review in detail what happened with the recent Coinkite fiasco. The security playing field is basically identical and the extremely real (and dramatically realized) risk is basically identical.
虽然这看起来可能无害，但 Bitwarden 最好详细回顾一下最近 Coinkite 的惨败。安全领域的情况基本相同，而且极其真实（且已戏剧性地实现）的风险也基本相同。
In summary: CoinKite ColdCard was also published open software but without a FOSS license. This, in turn, eliminated any possibility and motivation for the community to fork, audit, and review their software. This, in turn, allowed a, frankly, idiotic bug to fester. This in turn led to users’/customers’ loss of a few million dollars of value to an almost trivial exploit that can’t even be classified as a proper hack. Besides insane value loss, Coinkite is effectively dead as an enterprise and its principles doxed and will remain shunned the rest of their lives (deservedly so; I accidentally know one of them as a previous work colleague — not a bad guy, but this is deserved).
总之：CoinKite ColdCard 也曾发布为开放软件，但没有 FOSS 许可。这反过来消除了社区分叉、审计和审查其软件的任何可能性和动力。这进而导致一个坦率地说很愚蠢的漏洞得以滋生。这最终导致用户/客户因一个几乎不能被称为正式黑客攻击的琐碎漏洞而损失了数百万美元的价值。除了巨大的价值损失外，Coinkite 作为一家企业实际上已经死亡，其负责人被曝光，并将余生都受到排斥（这是他们应得的；我偶然认识其中一人，他是我以前的同事——他不是个坏人，但这是他应得的）。
This is exactly where Bitwarden is heading now.
这正是 Bitwarden 现在的发展方向。
This seems like a great reason for me to discontinue my Bitwarden subscription. Bitwarden is easily the best platform out there for password management but this is the obvious result of venture capital influence and attorneys.
这对我来说似乎是一个停止 Bitwarden 订阅的绝佳理由。Bitwarden 无疑是目前最好的密码管理平台，但这显然是风险投资影响和律师干预的结果。
What would keep me subscribed as a user if I have the requirement that I must be able to self-host a platform in order to keep using it (even if I am not currently self-hosting, which I am not)?
如果我有“必须能够自托管平台才能继续使用”的要求（即使我目前并没有自托管），那么还有什么能让我继续作为用户订阅呢？
Hey @zfJames there is no requirement to self-host and you can continue using the clients from the app storefronts as normal.
嘿 @zfJames，没有强制要求自托管，你可以继续像往常一样使用应用商店里的客户端。
Thank you for your reply! I think my question was worded confusingly.
感谢您的回复！我想我的问题表述得令人困惑了。
My requirement for a password manager is: It must give me the option to self host if I choose to do so.
我对密码管理器的要求是：如果我选择这样做，它必须给我提供自托管的选项。
That is a safeguard against my passwords and data getting locked in a box that I cannot get out of. With this new license and policy, it is clear to me that Bitwarden now does not meet my requirements. An unnamed list of “features” will now be developed entirely apart from what I can host that may or may not end up being critical for security.
这是为了防止我的密码和数据被锁在一个我无法取出的盒子里。有了这个新的许可和政策，我很清楚 Bitwarden 现在不再满足我的要求。一份未命名的“功能”列表现在将完全脱离我所能托管的内容进行开发，这些功能最终是否对安全至关重要尚不可知。
Can you confirm if this is correct?
你能确认这是否正确吗？
That is incorrect, there is no change to the ability to self-host with a Bitwarden subscription.
这是不正确的，Bitwarden 订阅的自托管能力没有任何改变。
That is a safeguard against my passwords and data getting locked in a box that I cannot
这是为了防止我的密码和数据被锁在一个我无法取出的盒子里。