- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- privacy@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- privacy@programming.dev
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 must log in or register to comment.
Apparently and according to Bitwardens post here, this is a “packaging bug” and will be resolved.
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.”
Let’s hope this is not just the PR compartment trying to make this look good.
I think even if they do reverse course or it was a genuine mistake, it’s easy to lose people’s trust forever, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something sensitive like storing ALL of your passwords.
Laughs in keepassxc
How would the community’s reaction be if Bitwarden goes, “Look, we are moving more into the enterprise space, which means using proprietary software to service their needs. Our intention is to keep the enterprise and public versions sandboxed, but there is crossover, and we made a mistake.”? I really don’t care what they do in the enterprise space. Perhaps I’m an apologist, but seemingly more torn than most other posters.
ITT: A lot of conspiracy theories without much (any?) evidence. Let’s see if they resolve the dependency issue before wet get our pitchforks, shall we?
I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
I see overwhelming evidence that they have intentionally made parts of the clients’ code proprietary. You can check the client code yourself (for now anyways) and convince yourself of the fact that the bw SDK code is in indeed integrated into the bitwarden clients’ code base.
This is the license text of the sdk-internal used in 2024.10.1 (0.1.3): https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/blob/16a8496bfb62d78c9692a44515f63e73248e7aab/LICENSE
You can read that license text to convince yourself of the fact that it is absolutely proprietary.
Here is also the CTO and founder of Bitwarden admitting that they have done it and are also attempting to subvert the GPL in using sdk-internal:
https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2424865225
Hi @brjsp, Thanks for sharing your concerns here. We have been progressing use of our SDK in more use cases for our clients. However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
- the SDK and the client are two separate programs
- code for each program is in separate repositories
- the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3
Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.
(Emphasis mine.)
The fluff about the ability to even build the app is secondary, the primary issue is that the Bitwarden clients are no longer free software. That fact is irrefutable.
That would be an issue if they were not open source. Them making their own SDK proprietary is not a pitchfork issue.
Open source !== Non-proprietary
I would go as far as to say that Bitwarden’s main competitive advantage and differentiation is that it’s open source. They would be insane to change that.
Well, then it would be nice to hear from them an explanation on why they decided to violate the GPLv3 on their client, by coupling it with proprietary code in a way that disallows building and/or usage without that proprietary component.
They would be insane to change that.
Yes. And i hope that they recover from it soon.
Well, then it would be nice to hear from them an explanation on why they decided to violate the GPLv3
Lucky for you, they provided that explanation:
- This is a bug/mistake.
- Our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
- We will fix this.
Ok, lets take it step by step:
Thanks for sharing your concerns here. We have been progressing use of our SDK in more use cases for our clients. However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
- the SDK and the client are two separate programs
I think they meant executable here, but that also doesn’t matter. If both programs can only be used together and not separate, and one is under GPLv3, then the other needs to be under GPLv3 too.
- code for each program is in separate repositories
How the code is structured doesn’t matter, it is about how it is consumed by the end-user, there both programs are delivered together and work together.
- the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3
The way those two programs communicate together, doesn’t matter, they only work together and not separate from each other. Both need to be under GPLv3
Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.
Not being able to build a GPLv3 licenses program without a proprietary one, is a build dependency. GPLv3 enforces you to be able to reproduce the code and I am pretty sure that the build tools and dependencies need to be under a GPLv3 compatible license as well.
But all of that still doesn’t explain what their goal of introducing the proprietary SDK is. What function will it have in the future? Will open source part be completely independent or not? What features will depend on the close-source part, and which do not? Have they thought about any ethical concerns, that many contributors contributed to their software because it under a GPL license? How are they planning on dealing with the loss of trust, in a project where trust is very important? etc.
What features will depend on the close-source part, and which do not?
There are definitely some terminology issues here.
The SDK is not closed source, you can find the source here: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk
It might not be GPL open-source, but it is not closed either.
Other than that, I agree with your points. I don’t agree with the kneejerk hysteria from many of the comments - it’s one of the worst things about FOSS is how quick people are to anger (I am not referring to you here).
But all of that still doesn’t explain what their goal of introducing the proprietary SDK is.
Let’s wait and see before we get out the pitchforks.
The SDK is not closed source, you can find the source here: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk
It might not be GPL open-source, but it is not closed either.
Sure. To me “source available” is still closed-source, since looking into it might give companies an attack surface for you to have violated their copyright in the future. Happened with IBM in the past: https://books.google.de/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Let’s wait and see before we get out the pitchforks.
Sure. Bitwarden doesn’t owe us anything, but it is still sad to see this decision and better clarification and explanation could have alleviated the breaking of the trust here.
Too late. Found a pitchfork sale in my local hardware store, so got a few for this and whatever fucking company does a rug pull next.
There’s a lot of drama in that Issue, and then, at the very end:
Thanks for sharing your concerns here. We have been progressing use of our SDK in more use cases for our clients. However, our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
the SDK and the client are two separate programs
code for each program is in separate repositories
the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.
Um can someone translate what this means?
They claim the SDK and Bitwarden are completely separate, so Bitwarden is still open source.
The fact that the current version of Bitwarden doesn’t work at all without the SDK is just a bug, which will be fixed Soon™
Iirc, once reported, the project has 30 days to remedy or they are in violation of the license. They can’t even release a new version with a different license since this version is out under the GPL.
Given that they own all of the source code (CLA is required to contribute), they can just stop offering the code under GPL, unless they happen to have any GPL dependencies not under their control, in which case this would not be viable.
Switching licenses to future versions doesn’t invalidate previous versions released under GPL.
I’m not a lawyer but I deal with OSS licenses for work and I don’t know if there’s ever been a case like this, that I can think of anyway.
Their previous versions, still being under the GPL, would require them to release a change to make it usable on desktops. Again, I’m not a lawyer here but there is a lot of case law behind the GPL and I think the user who made the issue could take them to court to force them to make the change if they don’t respond in 30 days.
Licensing the source as GPL doesn’t really force the copyright holder (which is 100% BitWarden due to their Contributors Agreement^*, no matter who contributed the code) to do anything - they are absolutely free to release binaries built on the same codebase as proprietary software without any mention of the GPL.
For example if I write a hello world terminal program, release its source code under GPLv3 and then build it and give the built binary to you (and a permission to use it), you cannot force me to give you the source code for that build because I never gave you a GPL licensed binary.
If you were to take my GPLv3 source code and distribute a build of it however, you would have to license your binaries under GPLv3, because that’s the terms of the license I provided the source code to you under. Your users would then have the right to request the source code of those binaries from you. And if you released the build under an incompatible license, I (but not the users) could sue you for violating my license.
Their previous versions, still being under the GPL, would require them to release a change to make it usable on desktops.
License violations are usually not resolved by making the violator comply retroactively, just going forward. And it’s the copyright holder (so BitWarden themselves) who needs to force the violator to comply.
^* this is the relevant part of the CA:
By submitting a Contribution, you assign to Bitwarden all right, title, and interest in any copyright in the Contribution and you waive any rights, including any moral rights or database rights, that may affect our ownership of the copyright in the Contribution.
It is followed by a workaround license for parts of the world where copyright cannot be given up.
Also important to note is that they are creating the same license problems in other places.
They broke f-droid builds 3 months ago and try to navigate users to their own repo now. Their own repo ofc not applying foss requirements, because the android app is no longer foss as of 3 months ago. Now the f-droid version is slowly going out of date, which creates a nice security risk for no reason other than their greed.
Apparently they also closed-sourced their “convenient” npm Bitwarden module 2 months ago, using some hard to follow reference to a license file. Previously it was marked GPL3.
further translating it: they are closing it down but trying to make it look like they arent
They’re trying to argue legal technicalities because acknowledging that they’re trying to reduce compatibility with servers like vaultwarden would be bad PR.
Per their new license, anyone that uses their SDK to build a client cannot say, “this is for Bitwarden and compatible servers like vaultwarden”. They cannot support those other servers, per their license. Anyone that gets suckered into using their SDK now becomes a force against alternative implementations.
plan to resolve
timeline unknown, maybe 2124
Dumb it.
Move to something else.
This is how fuckery starts.
If this is not resolved I will likely switch to another service. Free software compatibility was the main reason I paid for bitwarden over its competitors.
I will change for sure, as well. Let’s see.
What does this change for you?
Seems to change nothing for all my devices which is a cheap offering at $10/year.
The direction that the company is taking. Clearly that Bitwarden feels like other open source projects are diverting revenue from them.
That’s a small step towards enshittification. They close this part of the software, then another part until slowly it is closed source.
We’ve seen this move over and over.
Stopping your business with Bitwarden over that issue sends a message that many customers don’t find this acceptable. If enough people stop using their service, they have a chance to backtrack. But even then, if they’ve done it once, they’ll try it again.
Your current price is 10$/year now. But the moment a company tries to cull any open source of their project is the moment they try to cash it in.
That’s a small step towards enshittification
Going away from opensource model that you built your business over is a pretty big step.
And incredibly stupid as well.
How will anyone know what they add to the code now? That’s the problem, and with our fucking passwords no less. They can fuck right off. In my environment alone they will be loosing upwards of 3,500 dollars yearly, 700,000 if I can convince my boss to dump them for the company as well.
Fuck. Is it difficult to export my data to something like Keypass? Very disappointed to hear this.
Bitwarden has an export functionality. Export to JSON, import in Keepass, done.
There’s KeePassXC if you want Linux support (keepass2 file is compat with XC variant).
Thank you! It seems this whole thing was a misunderstanding however. It was an error on Bitwarden’s part that they intend to correct. I may still switch to kepassxc later on, mostly to save the money.
https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2436287977
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.
https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85878e9cce03283694d01d878481f6b
Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to GPLv3 License!
Nobody here talks about keepassxc ? I’ve been using it for almost a decade, it can be used with sync tools to be shared, I’ve managed to have db keepass file opened on several computers and it did work well. Gplv3 here https://keepassxc.org/
Bitwarden can’t be compared to KeePassXC. Bitwarden is fundamentally built around a sync server, whereas KeePass is meant to exclusively operate locally. These are two very different fundamental concepts for, you know, how to actually store and access your passwords.
Store your database in a nextcloud instance and it’s that too
Nope. Since the entire database is contained in a single file, it can’t sync multiple edits properly, leading to sync conflicts. Because KeePass was built around local database files, whereas Bitwarden uses actual synced databases, where individual updates can be uploaded, instead of causing conflicts or overwriting the entire db.
Conflicts haven’t been an issue for years, all modern iterations of KeePass (XC, kp2a, DX) support automatically merging in the latest before saving.
I’ve been using it for years this way across several devices, it’s incredibly solid
Keepass isn’t really in the same category of product as Bitwarden. The interesting part of bitwarden is that it’s ran as a service.
No Android app though?
No excuse to not look into it now. Hopefully it uses Android autofill.
It does support autofill
Testing it then will see if it passes the wife test for ease of use.
Ty, exploring alternative tools. I really don’t like last pass due to their lax data security and 1 Password for the same reason.
Bitwarden still earns my $10/year.
Ever since BitWarden got mired in capitalism, I’ve been dreading that something like this would happen.
Damn, I just switched from Bitwarden to KeepPassXC.
Clearly just in time. Lol.
I’ll be there in a week or 2 bud. Fuck these companies baiting and then enshitifying it all.
What mobile solution are you using in this scenario?
I just exported my data from BitWarden and imported into ProtonPass. Was pretty easy. Hate the color palette of the app and browser extension though, lol.
I can’t imagine that’s any more free than bitwarden?
GPL’d clients. Everything is encrypted/decrypted on the client before sending/receiving to/from the server. I may later switch to a self-hosted solution, but don’t want to set one up right now (was using BitWarden’s cloud before).
Looks like I might be moving to Proton Pass after all! I’ll give them some time to see what they do about this, but will happily give my money to someone else and migrate friends/family as well.
I know little about Proton Pass, but how confident are you they don’t also use a proprietary SDK with their open source apps?
Does anyone have experience with keyguard? From a cursory glance, this + vaultwarden seems like a good alternative…
I have some! I use a self hosted vaultwarden and just two days ago I saw and installed KeyGuard out of curiosity. So far, I can say KeyGuard is a nicer looking and feeling app and… it works. So as long as their intentions are pure, you can use “bitwarden” without using any of their software or infrastructure.
Just tried it, and it seems you can’t edit or add items without a premium subscription??
Or am I missing something?
Edit: Apparently only when installing via the Play Store. Very weird decision.
Ah, yeah, I installed it from their github with obtainium. I think open source/libre app that charges people to install with the play store is a model a few others have tried as well.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to be paid, but a mandatory subscription when using the most common install method does irk me the wrong way
I haven’t looked into it at all, but that just seems so strange. Who would pay that when the original Bitwarden app is still there for free? Most people who would even know about KeyGuard would know how to install it from somewhere else. Is it essentially a donation?
