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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] twirl7303@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

I will change for sure, as well. Let's see.

[+] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What does this change for you?

Seems to change nothing for all my devices which is a cheap offering at $10/year.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a small step towards enshittification

Going away from opensource model that you built your business over is a pretty big step.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

And incredibly stupid as well.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] asap@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

What part changed the code to closed source?

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

And move to what?

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Anything, even Proton. The point is making a statement. If you start as OSS, you can fuck right off when you decide to come back sideways locking code down.