Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients
github.com
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: Y...

@brjsp thanks again for submitting the concern here. We have made some adjustments to how the SDK code is organized and packaged to allow you to build and run the app with only GPL/OSI licenses included. The sdk-internal package references in the clients now come from a new sdk-internal repository, which follows the licensing model we have historically used for all of our clients (see LICENSE_FAQ.md for more info). The sdk-internal reference only uses GPL licenses at this time. If the reference were to include Bitwarden License code in the future, we will provide a way to produce multiple build variants of the client, similar to what we do with web vault client builds.

The original sdk repository will be renamed to sdk-secrets, and retains its existing Bitwarden SDK License structure for our Secrets Manager business products. The sdk-secrets repository and packages will no longer be referenced from the client apps, since that code is not used there.

This appears at least okay on the surface. The clients’ dependency on sdk-internal didn’t change but that’s okay now because they have licensed sdk-internal as GPL.

The sdk-secrets will remain proprietary but that’s a separate product (Secrets Manager) and will apparently not be used in the regular clients. Who knows for how long though because, if you read carefully, they didn’t promise that it will not be used in the future.

The fact that they had ever intended to make parts of the client proprietary without telling anyone and attempted to subvert the GPL while doing so still remains utterly unacceptable. They didn’t even attempt to apologise for that.

Bitwarden has now landed itself in the category of software that I would rather move away from and cannot wholeheartedly recommend anymore. That’s pretty sad.

  • Miimikko@lemmy.world
    24·
    1 month ago

    Uhh what does this mean for us dummies? For reference I run a self hosted vaultwarden server and connect to it with Bitwarden clients.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      54·
      1 month ago

      It means all the code you run is open source.
      Only the Bitwarden back-end uses proprietary code, which you aren’t using when you’re self-hosting vaultwarden.

      • kratoz29@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        1 month ago

        Only the Bitwarden back-end uses proprietary code

        So this was what it changed then?

        I also self-host Vaultwarden because it is stupidly simple…

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
          9·
          1 month ago

          No, this comment was wrong. Most of the back end is not closed source. One piece of code for secrets management is closed source, that is not used in clients and was accidentally (allegedly) added to the clients, which they removed.

          Vaultwarden is open source.

          Personally I think people are overreacting. If BitWarden were to do something dumb like shift away from GPL, there would very quickly be a fork.

    • Leaflet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 month ago

      With 2024.10, Bitwarden could no longer be built without their proprietary SDK.

      That was deemed a bug and now the SDK is also licensed under the GPL.

    • N0x0n@lemmy.ml
      123·
      1 month ago

      I think right now it doesn’t mean anything :/. It’s more a ‘wait&see’ situation… However as many many other stories in the past, this doesn’t sound good and bitwarden is slowly and carefully following the ‘enshitification’ path !

      Keep an eye open and get ready to switch to another password manager (maybe a fork?).

      • Buckshot@programming.dev
        162·
        1 month ago

        Yeah I’ll willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Could very easily believe that a dev added the reference without realising the implications and they fixed it very quickly. Will be watching for any future attempts though.

        • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
          96·
          1 month ago

          If this was the case, the phrashing around the issue would’ve likely been different. Yet bitwarden remained very vague, and even locked github comments on the issue.

          Especially considering that a move like this alienates their core target demographic (people who use FOSS), they would’ve been much more open and much quicker if it wasn’t intentional.

          I will personally be switching, likely to KeePassXC.

          • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            1 month ago

            They highlighted it was a bug and said it would be fixed very soon after it was flagged. It was addressed in a matter of days. You can build the server with the /p:DefineConstants=“OSS” flag still and you can build the clients with the bitwarden_license folder deleted again (now they’ve fixed it).

            I don’t understand why you’re throwing FUD about this. Building without the Bitwarden Licensed code has been possible for years and those components under that license have been enterprise focused (such as SSO). The client is still GPL and the server is still AGPL.

            This has been the way for years.