▲ 630 ▼ Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source (www.phoronix.com) submitted 2 years ago by AsudoxDev@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world 188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) The clients are free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) They now require a non-free Bitwarden SDK component. That's what this whole conversation is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Could you ELI5 please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AsudoxDev@programming.dev [S] 7 points 2 years ago "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 is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction... 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." permalink fedilink source parent [–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 point 2 years ago Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve. I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) They now require a non-free Bitwarden SDK component. That's what this whole conversation is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Could you ELI5 please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AsudoxDev@programming.dev [S] 7 points 2 years ago "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 is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction... 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." permalink fedilink source parent [–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 point 2 years ago Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve. I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Could you ELI5 please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AsudoxDev@programming.dev [S] 7 points 2 years ago "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 is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AsudoxDev@programming.dev [S] 7 points 2 years ago "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 is a condition when using their SDK. This is not considered a free (as in freedom) component because it violates freedom 0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago And the whole conversation is about a bug, not a change in direction... 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." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 point 2 years ago Only the desktop client. And the response is that not being able to compile sans SDK is an issue they will resolve. I still think this is bad directionally, but we need to see what happens. permalink fedilink source parent