8mo ago

Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients · GitHub

github.com

Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients

Opensource @programming.dev

Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.zip

8mo ago

Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients

github.com /bitwarden/clients/issues/11611

Open Source @lemmy.ml

pnutzh4x0r @lemmy.ndlug.org

8mo ago

Bitwarden Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software

github.com /bitwarden/clients/issues/11611

Privacy @programming.dev

lemme in @lemm.ee

8mo ago

Desktop version 2024.10.0 is no longer free software · Issue #11611 · bitwarden/clients

github.com /bitwarden/clients/issues/11611

18 comments

Answer of Bitwarden founder:
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.
- the fact that the two programs communicate using standard protocols does not mean they are one program for purposes of GPLv3
  The fact that they would even think about attempting to subvert the GPL (much less actually pulling through with it) makes me think they have stopped being an open source company a while ago.
  
  That VC money was the start of the end. No reassurance can be trusted the moment a company accepts VC funding. It's only a matter of time until Bitwarden makes their next enshittification move.
"Bitwsrden locked and limited conversation". Always the best solution to the publicity problems.
- Not saying what they are doing is right, but Github issues are not a forum.
  There's a dozen people in there adding absolutely nothing to the issue, I would have locked it as well.
This is example 4664336 of a for profit company pulling the rug from underneath an open source project. It'a becomes a genuine risk as every time the mask comes off, you know it's going to be ugly.
- Not a problem if there is no CLA
In the other thread somebody pointed out that they took VC money. Could be the start of enshitification process.
LMAO. KeePass ftw.
- If KeepassXC goes under (most unlikely), I would probably switch to another field or electronics
- I switched from Chrome (💀)*to Proton and it's great! Proton's even trying to become a non-profit now, LOL.
  
  Laughed out loud at your 💀 here lol, now that's a perfectly executed self jab
@bitwarden bitwarden locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Me, a long time KeyPass enjoyer:
"Y'know people keep talking about BitWarden, maybe it's more accessible and I should give it a tr...(sees this) PFFFFFTTTT! DODGED THAT BULLET."
"Bitwarden locked and limited conversation". Always the best solution to the publicity problems.
After this and the few hiccups I’ve had with Bitwarden on Linux (official snap in part still relies on Ubuntu 18.04 libraries and still defaults to X11, not great for security focused app), I’ve decided to give Proton a shot. Went for 2 year unlimited plan, so I hope they don’t do anything stupid in that time.
That being said, I’m not hating on Bitwarden. Based on what one of the developers said, this seems to be an oversight from their side that they should hopefully address. This is just my excuse to try out the Proton suite based on their strong focus on privacy and security, albeit with a hefty cost (and somewhat scummy strategy of listing prices as monthly but are actually paid annually, and choosing the actually monthly options are much more expensive).
"For only $1000 in bitcoin we will decrypt your files until the next time we fsck you over."

18 comments