Fabio Manganiello on Nostr: #Bitwarden has partially amended their recent alarming licensing changes. Namely, the ...
#Bitwarden has partially amended their recent alarming licensing changes.
Namely, the LICENSE file of the backend has been replaced with a generic GPL 3.0 license, rather than their custom (and non-free) Bitwarden SDK license.
They also fixed the bug that prevented the UI from building without the bitwarden_license package.
However, the SDK license still applies to the SDK itself.
The point 3.3 of that license in particular seems to still break the fundamental freedoms of open software:
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.
So for the time being it’s probably safe to assume that the Bitwarden backend is free software, but I don’t think that definition can extend to the SDK (and everything built on it, which includes the desktop app).
https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85878e9cce03283694d01d878481f6b
Namely, the LICENSE file of the backend has been replaced with a generic GPL 3.0 license, rather than their custom (and non-free) Bitwarden SDK license.
They also fixed the bug that prevented the UI from building without the bitwarden_license package.
However, the SDK license still applies to the SDK itself.
The point 3.3 of that license in particular seems to still break the fundamental freedoms of open software:
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.
So for the time being it’s probably safe to assume that the Bitwarden backend is free software, but I don’t think that definition can extend to the SDK (and everything built on it, which includes the desktop app).
https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85878e9cce03283694d01d878481f6b