Comment

Comment on Bitwarden Makes Change To Address Recent Open-Source Concerns

CriticalMiss@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Sure. The majority of the BitWarden client is licensed under the GPL, which categorizes it as “free software”. However, one of the dependencies titled “BitWarden-SDK” was licensed under a different proprietary license which didn’t allow re-distribution of the SDK. For the most part, this was never a problem as FOSS package maintainers didn’t include the dependency (as it was optional) and were able to compile the various clients and keep the freedoms granted by the GPL license. However, a recent change made BitWarden-SDK a required dependency, which violated freedom 0 (the freedom to distribute the code as you please). BitWarden CTO came out and said this was an error and fixed this, making BitWarden SDK an optional dependency once again which now makes BitWarden free software again. For the average joe, this wouldn’t have mattered as BitWarden SDK contains features that are usually favored by businesses and the average Joe can live without. So everything now returns back to normal, hopefully.

source

Sort:hotnew top

kia@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Now could you explain it like I’m 4?

source
- Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Free software had a non-free extra bit that it technically didn’t need. Accidentally got changed to need the non-free part in order to run which caused news stories. Now the change has been reverted so it’s free again.
  
  source
  - TheOneAndOnlyDeath@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Now could you explain it like I’m 3?
    
    source
    soul@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Free cookie recipe not really free because oopsie! Man fixed it now. Cookie recipe is free again! Yay!
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- sunbytes@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  You don’t know any 5yo software engineers?
  
  source
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
This seems like classic corporate backtracking when their customers spot a terrible, deliberate decision.

source
- douglasg14b@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  This seems like classic corporate backtracking when their customers spot a terrible, deliberate decision.
  
  I didn’t think that’s the case here
  
  However, would you rather that the feedback of users NOT change behavior? I’m not entirely sure what your end game is here, you WANT corporations to ignore and not take action on feedback?
  
  source
  - Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Why do they have to “WANT” that? Why does that matter to the criticism? If it’s true, it’s true, and the fact that corporations are the ones in a position to habitually make terrible decisions about FOSS is a big problem. It’s valid to point out that it would be good to find a better way.
    
    If anything it sounds like you “WANT” to ignore it.
    
    source
- CriticalMiss@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I don’t think so, to be honest. The bitwarden-sdk had been there for a VERY long time and you could always compile without it. Not being able to build a FOSS client wouldn’t hurt bitwarden’s bottom line too much. Most people use whatever is provided in the app stores (which is compiled with the source available sdk).
  
  source