496

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rozlav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 1 day ago

Nobody here talks about keepassxc ? I've been using it for almost a decade, it can be used with sync tools to be shared, I've managed to have db keepass file opened on several computers and it did work well. Gplv3 here https://keepassxc.org/

[-] unrushed233@lemmings.world 14 points 19 hours ago

Bitwarden can't be compared to KeePassXC. Bitwarden is fundamentally built around a sync server, whereas KeePass is meant to exclusively operate locally. These are two very different fundamental concepts for, you know, how to actually store and access your passwords.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I just switched over. Honestly, I like it even more than Bitwarden. Then again, I don't sync my stuff between devices because I'm old I guess. Lol. It makes it easier to switch because I don't have to deal with stuff like Syncthing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] twirl7303@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago

If this is not resolved I will likely switch to another service. Free software compatibility was the main reason I paid for bitwarden over its competitors.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] andrew_s@piefed.social 126 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There's a lot of drama in that Issue, and then, at the very end:

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.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago

Um can someone translate what this means?

[-] superkret@feddit.org 112 points 1 day ago

They claim the SDK and Bitwarden are completely separate, so Bitwarden is still open source.

The fact that the current version of Bitwarden doesn't work at all without the SDK is just a bug, which will be fixed Soon™

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

further translating it: they are closing it down but trying to make it look like they arent

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 day ago

Iirc, once reported, the project has 30 days to remedy or they are in violation of the license. They can't even release a new version with a different license since this version is out under the GPL.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 17 points 23 hours ago

Given that they own all of the source code (CLA is required to contribute), they can just stop offering the code under GPL, unless they happen to have any GPL dependencies not under their control, in which case this would not be viable.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 23 hours ago

Switching licenses to future versions doesn't invalidate previous versions released under GPL.

I'm not a lawyer but I deal with OSS licenses for work and I don't know if there's ever been a case like this, that I can think of anyway.

Their previous versions, still being under the GPL, would require them to release a change to make it usable on desktops. Again, I'm not a lawyer here but there is a lot of case law behind the GPL and I think the user who made the issue could take them to court to force them to make the change if they don't respond in 30 days.

[-] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 19 hours ago

It means previous versions remain open, but ownership trumps any license restrictions.
They don't license the code to themselves, they just have it. And if they want to close source it they can.

GPLv3 and copyleft only work to protect against non-owners doing that. CLA means a project is not strongly open source, the company doing that CLA can rugpull at any time.

The fact a project even has a CLA should be extremely suspect, because this is exactly what you would use that for. To ensure you can harvest contributions and none of those contributers will stand in your way when you later burn the bridges and enshittify.

[-] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

What is CLA in this context?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 47 points 1 day ago

They're trying to argue legal technicalities because acknowledging that they're trying to reduce compatibility with servers like vaultwarden would be bad PR.

Per their new license, anyone that uses their SDK to build a client cannot say, "this is for Bitwarden and compatible servers like vaultwarden". They cannot support those other servers, per their license. Anyone that gets suckered into using their SDK now becomes a force against alternative implementations.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 day ago

The main program is open, but the development tools are not

[-] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago

plan to resolve

timeline unknown, maybe 2124

load more comments (1 replies)

Damn, I just switched from Bitwarden to KeepPassXC.

Clearly just in time. Lol.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 18 points 23 hours ago

A few questions out of ignorance. How different is this to gitlab's open core model? Is this a permanent change? Is the involvement of investors the root of this? Are we overreacting as it doesn't meet our strict definition of foss?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Danitos@reddthat.com 3 points 16 hours ago

@bitwarden bitwarden locked and limited conversation to collaborators

They also locked the thread 16 hours ago (as of writing this comment), with no explanation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] fireshell@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

pass is enough (+ xdotool + rofi + pass-menu). Synchronization via git or Syncthing.

[-] guillem@aussie.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

I'm familiar with pass and familiar-ish with rofi. What do the other two do?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org 47 points 1 day ago

Ever since BitWarden got mired in capitalism, I've been dreading that something like this would happen.

[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 day ago

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.

I.e. "fuck you and your foss"

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

Looks like I might be moving to Proton Pass after all! I'll give them some time to see what they do about this, but will happily give my money to someone else and migrate friends/family as well.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

I know little about Proton Pass, but how confident are you they don't also used a proprietary SDK with their open source apps?

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i was about to replace my glorified encrypted text file for a password manager. guess relying on 3rd parties in a late-stage capitalist world is not a viable alternative.

ill stay with my encrypted text file until they privatize encryption. by then ill probably be carving my passwords out on stone. or burning down the servers of these fucking pigs trying to make us identify ourselves for everything on the internet now.

KeePassXC is pretty amazing. :)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
496 points (96.3% liked)

Open Source

30800 readers
1024 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS