Open Source

30826 readers

403 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]

526

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

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

122 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] 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

This hysteria is really stupid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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] 5 points 1 day 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.