Bitwarden Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software
https://lemmy.ndlug.org/post/1268531
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org
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 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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from andrew_s@piefed.social
Um can someone translate what this means?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from someguy3@lemmy.world
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™
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from superkret@feddit.org
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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
It means previous versions remain open, but ownership trumps any license restrictions.
They don’t license the code to themselves, they just have it. And if they want to close source it they can.
GPLv3 and copyleft only work to protect against non-owners doing that. CLA means a project is not strongly open source, the company doing that CLA can rugpull at any time.
The fact a project even has a CLA should be extremely suspect, because this is exactly what you would use that for. To ensure you can harvest contributions and none of those contributers will stand in your way when you later burn the bridges and enshittify.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
What is CLA in this context?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
I believe it’s a Contributor License Agreement
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from alkheemist@aussie.zone
Thank you.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).