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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A few questions out of ignorance. How different is this to gitlab's open core model? Is this a permanent change? Is the involvement of investors the root of this? Are we overreacting as it doesn't meet our strict definition of foss?

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How different is this to gitlab’s open core model?

That's a really good question that I don't immediately have a satisfying answer to.

There are some differences I can point out though:

Gitlab has demonstrated its commitment to keep the core of their product, though limited in features, free and open source. As of now, BW's clients cannot even be compiled without the proprietary SDK anymore.
Gitlab was always a permissive license (MIT) and never attempted to subvert its original license terms
Gitlab-EE's "closed" core is actually quite open (go read the source code) but still squarely in the proprietary camp because it requires you to have a valid subscription to exercise your freedoms.

Is this a permanent change?

It'd be quite trivial for them to do in technical terms: Either license the SDK as GPL or stop using it in the clients.

I don't see a reason for them to roll it back though. This was decided long ago and they explicitly decided to stray away from the status quo and make it closed source.

The only thing I could see making them revert this would be public pressure. If they lose a sufficient amount of subscribers over this, that might make them reconsider. Honestly though by that time, the cat's out of the bag and all the public goodwill and trust is gone.
It's honestly a bafflingly bad decision from even just a business perspective. I predict they'll lose at least 20% but likely 30-50% of their subscribers to this.

Is the involvement of investors the root of this?

I find that likely. If it stinks, it's usually something stinky's fault.

Are we overreacting as it doesn’t meet our strict definition of foss?

They are attempting to subvert one of the FOSS licenses held in the highest regard. You cannot really be much more anti than this.

An "honest" switch to completely proprietary licenses with a public announcement months prior would have been easier to accept.

[–] asap@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Gitlab has demonstrated its commitment to keep the core of their product, though limited in features, free and open source. As of now, BW's clients cannot even be compiled without the proprietary SDK anymore.

None of that makes Bitwarden not open source. Not only that, they specifically state this is a bug which will be addressed.

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 stop that.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

None of that makes Bitwarden not open source.

Yes, it does, because it violates its own license GPLv3 by having proprietary build-/runtime dependencies.

If it was under a different, maybe more permissive, open source license, then maybe it would still be open source, but as of right now i likely breaks its own license terms.

Not only that, they specifically state this is a bug which will be addressed.

From what they state, they think that because executables that share internal information via standard protocols does somehow not break GPL3 terms compared to two libraries that share internal state via the standardized C ABI which does. And they seem to not consider that a bug, just the build-time dependency.

[–] asap@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sorry that's my mistake - I should have said "source available", rather than "open source". IMO, being source available is the critical component of a password manager like Bitwarden, and is what I meant when I referred to their main competitive advantage.

They might also choose to be open source and fix this specific issue and return to GPL-compatibility, but remaining source available would seem to be the more critical factor.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you meant to say:

I would go as far as to say that Bitwarden’s main competitive advantage and differentiation is that it’s source is available.

That is not true, there are a lot of other password management software out there where the client source code is either open source or source available. For instance keyguard: https://github.com/AChep/keyguard-app?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme which is an alternative proprietary bitwarden client, where the source is also available. Also the Proton Pass client is under GPLv3.

I would argue that the main advantage of bitwarden compared to others is that it is open source and has an open source server for self-hosting (vaultwarden). Which of course makes it difficult in terms of business strategy with their VC funding. But maybe becoming a non-profit org and getting money from donors, the strategic funds of EU and other governments, etc. might be an alternative way.

[–] asap@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not aware of any other enterprise password management where the server source is available and auditable. Proton certainly is not.