Bitwarden Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software
Bitwarden Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
ITT: A lot of conspiracy theories without much (any?) evidence. Let's see if they resolve the dependency issue before wet get our pitchforks, shall we?
I don't know what the heck you're talking about.
I see overwhelming evidence that they have intentionally made parts of the clients' code proprietary. You can check the client code yourself (for now anyways) and convince yourself of the fact that the bw SDK code is in indeed integrated into the bitwarden clients' code base.
This is the license text of the sdk-internal used in 2024.10.1 (0.1.3): https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/blob/16a8496bfb62d78c9692a44515f63e73248e7aab/LICENSE
You can read that license text to convince yourself of the fact that it is absolutely proprietary.
Here is also the CTO and founder of Bitwarden admitting that they have done it and are also attempting to subvert the GPL in using sdk-internal:
https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2424865225
Hi @brjsp, 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.
(Emphasis mine.)
The fluff about the ability to even build the app is secondary, the primary issue is that the Bitwarden clients are no longer free software. That fact is irrefutable.
That would be an issue if they were not open source. Them making their own SDK proprietary is not a pitchfork issue.
Open source !== Non-proprietary
I would go as far as to say that Bitwarden's main competitive advantage and differentiation is that it's open source. They would be insane to change that.
Well, then it would be nice to hear from them an explanation on why they decided to violate the GPLv3 on their client, by coupling it with proprietary code in a way that disallows building and/or usage without that proprietary component.
They would be insane to change that.
Yes. And i hope that they recover from it soon.
Well, then it would be nice to hear from them an explanation on why they decided to violate the GPLv3
Lucky for you, they provided that explanation:
- This is a bug/mistake.
- Our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
- We will fix this.
Ok, lets take it step by step:
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
I think they meant executable here, but that also doesn't matter. If both programs can only be used together and not separate, and one is under GPLv3, then the other needs to be under GPLv3 too.
- code for each program is in separate repositories
How the code is structured doesn't matter, it is about how it is consumed by the end-user, there both programs are delivered together and work together.
- the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3
The way those two programs communicate together, doesn't matter, they only work together and not separate from each other. Both need to be under 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.
Not being able to build a GPLv3 licenses program without a proprietary one, is a build dependency. GPLv3 enforces you to be able to reproduce the code and I am pretty sure that the build tools and dependencies need to be under a GPLv3 compatible license as well.
But all of that still doesn't explain what their goal of introducing the proprietary SDK is. What function will it have in the future? Will open source part be completely independent or not? What features will depend on the close-source part, and which do not? Have they thought about any ethical concerns, that many contributors contributed to their software because it under a GPL license? How are they planning on dealing with the loss of trust, in a project where trust is very important? etc.
What features will depend on the close-source part, and which do not?
There are definitely some terminology issues here.
The SDK is not closed source, you can find the source here: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk
It might not be GPL open-source, but it is not closed either.
Other than that, I agree with your points. I don't agree with the kneejerk hysteria from many of the comments - it's one of the worst things about FOSS is how quick people are to anger (I am not referring to you here).
But all of that still doesn’t explain what their goal of introducing the proprietary SDK is.
Let's wait and see before we get out the pitchforks.
The SDK is not closed source, you can find the source here: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk
It might not be GPL open-source, but it is not closed either.
Sure. To me "source available" is still closed-source, since looking into it might give companies an attack surface for you to have violated their copyright in the future. Happened with IBM in the past: https://books.google.de/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Let’s wait and see before we get out the pitchforks.
Sure. Bitwarden doesn't owe us anything, but it is still sad to see this decision and better clarification and explanation could have alleviated the breaking of the trust here.
Too late. Found a pitchfork sale in my local hardware store, so got a few for this and whatever fucking company does a rug pull next.