Perhaps the hard dependency was a mistake, but not them moving more and more code to their proprietary library. It appears that their intent is to make the client mostly a wrapper around their proprietary library, so they can still claim to have an open source GPLv3 piece of software.
I’m not familiar with exactly what Bitwarden are doing, but Nvidia are doing something similar to what you described with their Linux GPU drivers. They launched new open-source drivers for Turing (GTX 16 and RTX 20 series) and newer GPUs. What they’re actually doing is moving more and more functionality to the closed-source firmware. Maybe that’s okay? I’m not sure how I feel about it.
How is that a problem to people wanting to work on or work with Bitwarden? Or am I misunderstanding the wording on it?
It just seems to say that you cannot rip this SDK out to use it on something else. Which makes sense as far as an internal library goes, at least on the surface?
Atemu@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
lemmy.ndlug.org/post/1268531
majestic@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I think it was made by mistake. They will more likely remove that dependency
486@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Perhaps the hard dependency was a mistake, but not them moving more and more code to their proprietary library. It appears that their intent is to make the client mostly a wrapper around their proprietary library, so they can still claim to have an open source GPLv3 piece of software.
nadir@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Instead of open core I’ll call this popular approach “open skin”.
dan@upvote.au 1 day ago
I’m not familiar with exactly what Bitwarden are doing, but Nvidia are doing something similar to what you described with their Linux GPU drivers. They launched new open-source drivers for Turing (GTX 16 and RTX 20 series) and newer GPUs. What they’re actually doing is moving more and more functionality to the closed-source firmware. Maybe that’s okay? I’m not sure how I feel about it.
ammonium@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Clearly not: github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issueco…
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
That says that it is a bug.
smiletolerantly@awful.systems 1 day ago
Ahh those fuckers.
Carighan@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t get it.
How is that a problem to people wanting to work on or work with Bitwarden? Or am I misunderstanding the wording on it?
It just seems to say that you cannot rip this SDK out to use it on something else. Which makes sense as far as an internal library goes, at least on the surface?
ammonium@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
It doesn’t make sense for an internal library for an open source application, it that case it’s not open source.