Comment on Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source

• coolmojo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It is a license problem. The license condition of the SDK which is required to build the client app change to limit the usage of it. The new license states that you can only use the Bitwarden SDK for Bitwarden. It is against the Freedoom-0 of the Free Software Foundation. The limitation of English language is that it is hard to differentiate between Free (as in Free bear) and Free (as in Freedoom). Also open source which could mean complaining with FOSS and that source is available. This been unfortunately have been abused before.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    From the article, it’s a packaging bug, not a change in direction.

    Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it’s a “packaging bug” and that “Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model.”

    source

    • coolmojo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I was referring to this which started it all.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Here is the code in question. Basically, it’s a source-available, but not FOSS internal SDK, with the following language:

        The password manager SDK is not intended for public use and is not supported by Bitwarden at this stage. It is solely intended to centralize the business logic and to provide a single source of truth for the internal applications. As the SDK evolves into a more stable and feature complete state we will re-evaluate the possibility of publishing stable bindings for the public. The password manager interface is unstable and will change without warning.

        So I think the “bug” here is in not linking the original repo in the NPM package, and there’s a decent chance that this internal SDK will become FOSS in the future once it stabilizes. That said, it’s currently not FOSS, but it’s too early IMO to determine whether Bitwarden is moving in a non-FOSS direction, or if they’re just trying to keep things simple while they do some heavy refactoring to remove redundancy across apps.

        Given their past, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll be making sure I have regular backups in case things change.

        source