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.

  • fl42v@lemmy.ml
    2·
    1 month 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”

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        3·
        1 month 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
          01·
          1 month 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!”