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...
  • lad@programming.devEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    I’m unfamiliar with bitwarden’s licence and skimmed through the issue and my understanding is:

    1. To use bitwarden API you must use SDK
    2. To use SDK you are obligated to be the official application, otherwise you violate the licence
    3. The official application is GPL but since SDK is somehow ‘separate program’ it is considered OK to couple with a more restrictive license

    However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.

    This is something I completely fail to understand other that mental gymnastics to bend the truth enough to not look like they are not quite right

    Edit: is my understanding correct? It looks like this is not the first project that becomes ‘source available’ after being FOSS in the past, as of lately

  • breakingcups@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 months ago

    Scummy behavior from Bitwarden, especially the locking of the issue. It’s clear they have no intention of preserving their open source efforts now that they’ve gotten big enough.

  • Hellfire103@lemmy.caEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    Ight, imma go back to KeePass

    EDIT: Jesus FUCKING Christ! £59.99 for Strongbox Pro‽ I’ve got to get an Android at some point…

  • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
    21·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    I recently set up Vaultwarden as a backup, and I’m glad I did. Does anybody know an alternative?