this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
530 points (95.5% liked)

Open Source

31336 readers
222 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[โ€“] asap@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The explanation is the second-to-last comment before it got locked. ๐Ÿคฆ

This hysteria is really stupid.

[โ€“] cmhe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That "explanation" is unsatisfactory and likely wrong: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

So they either have to license their SDK under a GPLv3 compatible license, or switch the license of their client to a non-GPL one.

Their "explaination" only mentions why they think can do it, but not why they are doing it.

[โ€“] asap@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That may or may not be the case, but the comment I replied to said they locked the thread with "no explanation".

[โ€“] cmhe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I would say a proper explanation includes the goal you want to achieve, not just the statement that you think that you are allowed to do something.

[โ€“] Danitos@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

That's the technical explanation for the changes, no an explanation for closing the discussion all together.