Technology

63614 readers

4570 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 other!
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
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

334

Bitwarden Makes Change To Address Recent Open-Source Concerns (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 146 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

That's a poor understanding of the situation. Nothing in the licensing changed. The SDK has always been the proprietary business to business secrets management product. The client integrates with and can use that SDK to provide the paid service to businesses. The client and the server side management of password has always been and still is FOSS.

This was apparently an accidental change in the build code (not the client code, just the building scripts) that required the inclusion of the SDK to build the client when actually it has never and doesn't really need any of that code. It prevented building the client without accepting the SDK license. Which it shouldn't.

This was fixed and some things will be put in place so it doesn't happen again. Nothing in the licensing scheme changed, at all. This is not a catastrophic enshittification event. A Dev was just being lazy and forgot to check the dependencies on the build chain before their commit.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for bringing some sanity. I get that people experience capitalist enshittification on a regular basis, but sometimes people make honest mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bullshit. Developers never make mistakes. N.E.V.R.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay, I actually laughed at that one! I guess us QA folks can just pack up and go home 😆

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

If it looks like a developer made a mistake, it was actually the product owner. Or the user. Or cosmic rays. But never the developer.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And, amazingly, someone still downvoted you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Idiots downvoting amazes you? Then there's a whole world of amazement awaiting you!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Thanks for the summary, it adds great clarity to seeing how it could happen

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Nothing in the licensing scheme changed, at all.

This statement is incorrect. The SDK had specific source files placed exclusively under the SDK license, and the remainder of the repository dual licensed between GPL 3 and the SDK license. So the licensing scheme did change.