Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients
github.com
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: Y...

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.

  • fireshell@lemmy.mlEnglish
    3·
    11 days ago

    https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2436287977

    We have made some adjustments to how the SDK code is organized and packaged to allow you to build and run the app with only GPL/OSI licenses included. The sdk-internal package references in the clients now come from a new sdk-internal repository, which follows the licensing model we have historically used for all of our clients (see LICENSE_FAQ.md for more info). The sdk-internal reference only uses GPL licenses at this time. If the reference were to include Bitwarden License code in the future, we will provide a way to produce multiple build variants of the client, similar to what we do with web vault client builds.

    https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85878e9cce03283694d01d878481f6b

    Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to GPLv3 License!

  • twirl7303@lemmy.world
    1·
    16 days 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.

    • AustralianSimon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      16 days ago

      What does this change for you?

      Seems to change nothing for all my devices which is a cheap offering at $10/year.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        16 days ago

        The direction that the company is taking. Clearly that Bitwarden feels like other open source projects are diverting revenue from them.

        That’s a small step towards enshittification. They close this part of the software, then another part until slowly it is closed source.

        We’ve seen this move over and over.

        Stopping your business with Bitwarden over that issue sends a message that many customers don’t find this acceptable. If enough people stop using their service, they have a chance to backtrack. But even then, if they’ve done it once, they’ll try it again.

        Your current price is 10$/year now. But the moment a company tries to cull any open source of their project is the moment they try to cash it in.

  • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
    0·
    16 days 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·
      10 days ago

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

      • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
        1·
        10 days ago

        Proton pass client doesn’t currently use a proprietary SDK, but they also haven’t made the same blunder as Bitwarden, which they’ve since fixed, but still not a good look.

        On another note - I did export/import all my passwords into proton pass and WOW the speed and UX feels so much better. I’m still sticking with Bitwarden as they’ve been really good so far, but there’s a real good alternative should they ever “turn evil”.

  • Andrew@piefed.socialEnglish
    0·
    16 days 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.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        1·
        16 days 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™