this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
333 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
59588 readers
3084 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm nerdy enough to use bitwarden but not nerdy enough to truly understand this.
Can someone explain it like I'm 5?
Sure. The majority of the BitWarden client is licensed under the GPL, which categorizes it as “free software”. However, one of the dependencies titled “BitWarden-SDK” was licensed under a different proprietary license which didn’t allow re-distribution of the SDK. For the most part, this was never a problem as FOSS package maintainers didn’t include the dependency (as it was optional) and were able to compile the various clients and keep the freedoms granted by the GPL license. However, a recent change made BitWarden-SDK a required dependency, which violated freedom 0 (the freedom to distribute the code as you please). BitWarden CTO came out and said this was an error and fixed this, making BitWarden SDK an optional dependency once again which now makes BitWarden free software again. For the average joe, this wouldn’t have mattered as BitWarden SDK contains features that are usually favored by businesses and the average Joe can live without. So everything now returns back to normal, hopefully.
Now could you explain it like I'm 4?
Free software had a non-free extra bit that it technically didn't need. Accidentally got changed to need the non-free part in order to run which caused news stories. Now the change has been reverted so it's free again.
Now could you explain it like I'm 3?
Free cookie recipe not really free because oopsie! Man fixed it now. Cookie recipe is free again! Yay!
Now could you explain it like I'm 104?
Now could you explain it like I'm 2?
NO, LouNeko! No touchy non-FOSS.
You don't know any 5yo software engineers?
This seems like classic corporate backtracking when their customers spot a terrible, deliberate decision.
That being said, I am happy about it. I got my company to use it and finally got my girlfriend to use it and just recommended it to her brother. Would hate to have to try to find something else
I didn't think that's the case here
However, would you rather that the feedback of users NOT change behavior? I'm not entirely sure what your end game is here, you WANT corporations to ignore and not take action on feedback?
Why do they have to "WANT" that? Ignoring the fact that they literally said they were happy it was changed back, why does that matter to the criticism? If it's true, it's true, and the fact that corporations are the ones in a position to habitually make terrible decisions about FOSS is a big problem. It's valid to point out that it would be good to find a better way.
If anything it sounds like you "WANT" to ignore it.
I don't think so, to be honest. The bitwarden-sdk had been there for a VERY long time and you could always compile without it. Not being able to build a FOSS client wouldn't hurt bitwarden's bottom line too much. Most people use whatever is provided in the app stores (which is compiled with the source available sdk).