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.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      56 months ago

      As with all of their services, the back-end is closed-source.

      For the purposes of user freedom, it’s not that critical as the back-end merely facilitates the storage and synchronisation of encrypted data. This is different from the bitwarden case where they’re now including freedom disrespecting code into the most critical part of their software: the clients which handle the unencrypted data.
      Fact of the matter remains however that Proton Pass restricts your freedom by not allowing you to self-host it.

      If you are fine with not being able to self-host, I’d say it’s a good option though. Doubly so if you are already a customer of their other services.
      Proton has demonstrated time and time again to act for the benefit of its users in the past decade and I see no incentive for them to stop doing so. I’d estimate a low risk of enshittification for Proton which is high praise for a company of their size.

  • @preasket@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    26 months ago

    We need a fully community run password manager with row-level server synchronisation between devices and shared vaults. Maybe a new client for the Bitwarden protocol with Vaultwarden or something new. E.g. 1password’s secret key as a second factor is, imho, their best feature. It pretty much eliminates the possibility of the vault being decrypted due to a weak master password.

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    i was about to replace my glorified encrypted text file for a password manager. guess relying on 3rd parties in a late-stage capitalist world is not a viable alternative.

    ill stay with my encrypted text file until they privatize encryption. by then ill probably be carving my passwords out on stone. or burning down the servers of these fucking pigs trying to make us identify ourselves for everything on the internet now.

  • @31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    26 months ago

    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.

      • @31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        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).

  • @nadiaraven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    46 months ago

    Okay, we’ll I’ve been using vaultwarden. When should I switch to something new, and what’s a good alternative?

  • @Lemmchen@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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?

    • youmaynotknow
      link
      fedilink
      86 months ago

      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.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      21
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • @asap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • @cmhe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          86 months ago

          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.

          • @asap@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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:

            1. This is a bug/mistake.
            2. Our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
            3. We will fix this.
            • @cmhe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              56 months ago

              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.

              • @asap@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 months ago

                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.

    • @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      416 months ago

      Yes because it is about, ultimately, making the major clients incompatible with vaultwarden on both a legal and technical level.

      A likely outcome if they don’t reverse course is a split where FOSS Nerfs fork the clients and have to maintain their own versions. That’s the outcome Bitwarden wants. This reeks of a bazinga, “how dare they benefit from our work and take our users”, which is hilarious for a FOSS ecosystem that almost universally benefits corporations with free labor.

    • @subtext@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      226 months ago

      Vaultwarden is only the server, no? So any clients that you use to access Vaultwarden are built and maintained by 8bit solutions a.k.a. Bitwarden, including the desktop client that is the subject of this post.

  • Andrew
    link
    fedilink
    English
    130
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        226 months ago

        The main program is open, but the development tools are not

      • @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        486 months ago

        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.

      • @superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        1206 months ago

        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™

        • @CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          296 months ago

          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.

          • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            186 months ago

            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.

            • @CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              166 months ago

              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.

              • Redjard
                link
                fedilink
                136 months ago

                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.

              • @Markaos@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                96 months ago

                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.

        • Redjard
          link
          fedilink
          176 months ago

          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.

        • ☂️-
          link
          fedilink
          176 months ago

          further translating it: they are closing it down but trying to make it look like they arent

    • @unbroken2030@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      136 months ago

      There is always a very vocal minority itching to cause as much drama as possible. It’s very discouraging to see in general. I agree with and want more FOSS, but I’m not sure I’d ever consider making it myself; it’s not worth extra stress personally.

  • @rozlav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    446 months ago

    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/

    • @unrushed233@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      196 months ago

      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.

        • @unrushed233@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          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.

          • @Hexarei@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            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

    • @EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I just switched over. Honestly, I like it even more than Bitwarden. Then again, I don’t sync my stuff between devices because I’m old I guess. Lol. It makes it easier to switch because I don’t have to deal with stuff like Syncthing.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      246 months ago

      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.

  • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
    link
    fedilink
    116 months ago

    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.

    • Bilb!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      86 months ago

      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.

      • @smiletolerantly@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Bilb!
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • @smiletolerantly@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            46 months ago

            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

            • Bilb!
              link
              fedilink
              English
              46 months ago

              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?

    • @midnightblue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      I just tried it out and I’m amazed. It looks and feels just like 1Password, my absolute favorite password manager (before I switched to Bitwarden, because 1Password is proprietary and pretty expensive)

      I definitely recommend it