498

Bitwarden Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software (github.com)

submitted 1 day ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Pull request #10974 introduces the @bitwarden/sdk-internal dependency which is needed to build the desktop client. The dependency contains a licence statement which contains the following clause:

You may not use this SDK to develop applications for use with software other than Bitwarden (including non-compatible implementations of Bitwarden) or to develop another SDK.

This violates freedom 0.

It is not possible to build desktop-v2024.10.0 (or, likely, current master) without removing this dependency.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] mli@lemm.ee 36 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Apparently and according to Bitwardens post here, this is a "packaging bug" and will be resolved.

Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it's a "packaging bug" and that "Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model."

Let's hope this is not just the PR compartment trying to make this look good.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 2 points 54 minutes ago

I think even if they do reverse course or it was a genuine mistake, it's easy to lose people's trust forever, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something sensitive like storing ALL of your passwords.

[-] zanyllama52@infosec.pub 10 points 9 hours ago

Laughs in keepassxc

[-] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 hours ago

How would the community's reaction be if Bitwarden goes, "Look, we are moving more into the enterprise space, which means using proprietary software to service their needs. Our intention is to keep the enterprise and public versions sandboxed, but there is crossover, and we made a mistake."? I really don't care what they do in the enterprise space. Perhaps I'm an apologist, but seemingly more torn than most other posters.

[-] vordalack@lemm.ee 9 points 13 hours ago

Dumb it.

Move to something else.

This is how fuckery starts.

[-] daggermoon@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

Fuck. Is it difficult to export my data to something like Keypass? Very disappointed to hear this.

[-] NostraDavid@programming.dev 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Bitwarden has an export functionality. Export to JSON, import in Keepass, done.

There's KeePassXC if you want Linux support (keepass2 file is compat with XC variant).

[-] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 15 points 18 hours ago

Does anyone have experience with keyguard? From a cursory glance, this + vaultwarden seems like a good alternative...

[-] midnightblue@lemmy.ca 4 points 13 hours ago

I just tried it out and I'm amazed. It looks and feels just like 1Password, my absolute favorite password manager (before I switched to Bitwarden, because 1Password is proprietary and pretty expensive)

I definitely recommend it

[-] bilb@lem.monster 8 points 18 hours ago

I have some! I use a self hosted vaultwarden and just two days ago I saw and installed KeyGuard out of curiosity. So far, I can say KeyGuard is a nicer looking and feeling app and... it works. So as long as their intentions are pure, you can use "bitwarden" without using any of their software or infrastructure.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Lemmchen@feddit.org 28 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

ITT: A lot of conspiracy theories without much (any?) evidence. Let's see if they resolve the dependency issue before wet get our pitchforks, shall we?

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 19 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

I see overwhelming evidence that they have intentionally made parts of the clients' code proprietary. You can check the client code yourself (for now anyways) and convince yourself of the fact that the bw SDK code is in indeed integrated into the bitwarden clients' code base.

This is the license text of the sdk-internal used in 2024.10.1 (0.1.3): https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/blob/16a8496bfb62d78c9692a44515f63e73248e7aab/LICENSE

You can read that license text to convince yourself of the fact that it is absolutely proprietary.

Here is also the CTO and founder of Bitwarden admitting that they have done it and are also attempting to subvert the GPL in using sdk-internal:

https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2424865225

Hi @brjsp, Thanks for sharing your concerns here. We have been progressing use of our SDK in more use cases for our clients. However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.

the SDK and the client are two separate programs

code for each program is in separate repositories

the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3

Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.

(Emphasis mine.)

The fluff about the ability to even build the app is secondary, the primary issue is that the Bitwarden clients are no longer free software. That fact is irrefutable.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago

I just exported my data from BitWarden and imported into ProtonPass. Was pretty easy. Hate the color palette of the app and browser extension though, lol.

[-] samc@feddit.uk 12 points 11 hours ago

I can't imagine that's any more free than bitwarden?

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

GPL'd clients. Everything is encrypted/decrypted on the client before sending/receiving to/from the server. I may later switch to a self-hosted solution, but don't want to set one up right now (was using BitWarden's cloud before).

load more comments