Open Source

31713 readers

301 users here now

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

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

537

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

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

127 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

@bitwarden bitwarden locked and limited conversation to collaborators

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The explanation is the second-to-last comment before it got locked. 🤦

This hysteria is really stupid.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That "explanation" is unsatisfactory and likely wrong: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

So they either have to license their SDK under a GPLv3 compatible license, or switch the license of their client to a non-GPL one.

Their "explaination" only mentions why they think can do it, but not why they are doing it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That may or may not be the case, but the comment I replied to said they locked the thread with "no explanation".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I would say a proper explanation includes the goal you want to achieve, not just the statement that you think that you are allowed to do something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

That's the technical explanation for the changes, no an explanation for closing the discussion all together.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

They banned me from reddit and then reported me with mods those fckers...