533

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

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

125 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.

(page 3) 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] andrew_s@piefed.social 130 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 60 points 1 week ago

Um can someone translate what this means?

[-] superkret@feddit.org 119 points 1 week 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™

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 week 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 week ago

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

[-] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago

plan to resolve

timeline unknown, maybe 2124

[-] unbroken2030@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago

There is always a very vocal minority itching to cause as much drama as possible. It's very discouraging to see in general. I agree with and want more FOSS, but I'm not sure I'd ever consider making it myself; it's not worth extra stress personally.

[-] SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org 48 points 1 week ago

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

[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 week 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"

[-] zante@lemmy.wtf 17 points 1 week ago

Pretty much the opposite

[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago

I doubt it. What'll probably happen is them moving more and more of the logic into the SDK (or adding the back-end of new features there), and leaving the original app to be more or less an agpl-licensed ui, while the actual logic becomes source-available. Soo, somewhat red-hat-esque vibes: no-no, we don't violate no stupid licenses, we just completely go against their spirit.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

go against their spirit

I think this is more of a failure of the license itself. It's not a good look to allow something explicitly and then go "no not like that!"

[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not sure you can classify this as a failure, as explicitly prohibiting interfacing with non-agpl stuff would greatly limit the amount of stuff you can license under it, perhaps up to the point of making it generally unusable. As for "not like that"... Well, yeah. But you can't deny it's misleading, right? Free software kinda implies you can modify it whatever you want, and if it's a free ui relying on a source-available middleware... Turns out, not so much.

Although, a posdible solution would be require explicitly mentioning if you're basically a front-end for something; but I'm not sure if it can be legally distinguished from the rest of use-cases.

[-] nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 14 points 1 week ago

Does this affect valtwarden?

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 week ago

Yes because it is about, ultimately, making the major clients incompatible with vaultwarden on both a legal and technical level.

A likely outcome if they don't reverse course is a split where FOSS Nerfs fork the clients and have to maintain their own versions. That's the outcome Bitwarden wants. This reeks of a bazinga, "how dare they benefit from our work and take our users", which is hilarious for a FOSS ecosystem that almost universally benefits corporations with free labor.

[-] subtext@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Vaultwarden is only the server, no? So any clients that you use to access Vaultwarden are built and maintained by 8bit solutions a.k.a. Bitwarden, including the desktop client that is the subject of this post.

load more comments