https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2436287977

We have made some adjustments to how the SDK code is organized and packaged to allow you to build and run the app with only GPL/OSI licenses included. The sdk-internal package references in the clients now come from a new sdk-internal repository, which follows the licensing model we have historically used for all of our clients (see LICENSE_FAQ.md for more info). The sdk-internal reference only uses GPL licenses at this time. If the reference were to include Bitwarden License code in the future, we will provide a way to produce multiple build variants of the client, similar to what we do with web vault client builds.

https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85878e9cce03283694d01d878481f6b

Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to GPLv3 License!

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.

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.

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.

Apparently and according to Bitwardens post here, this is a "packaging bug" and will be resolved.

Update: Bitwarden posted to X this evening to reaffirm that it's a "packaging bug" and that "Bitwarden remains committed to the open source licensing model."

Let's hope this is not just the PR compartment trying to make this look good.

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.

I.e. "fuck you and your foss"

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/

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?

Damn, I just switched from Bitwarden to KeepPassXC.

Clearly just in time. Lol.

A few questions out of ignorance. How different is this to gitlab's open core model? Is this a permanent change? Is the involvement of investors the root of this? Are we overreacting as it doesn't meet our strict definition of foss?

Does anyone have experience with keyguard? From a cursory glance, this + vaultwarden seems like a good alternative...

Does this affect valtwarden?

How would the community's reaction be if Bitwarden goes, "Look, we are moving more into the enterprise space, which means using proprietary software to service their needs. Our intention is to keep the enterprise and public versions sandboxed, but there is crossover, and we made a mistake."? I really don't care what they do in the enterprise space. Perhaps I'm an apologist, but seemingly more torn than most other posters.

Laughs in keepassxc

Fuck. Is it difficult to export my data to something like Keypass? Very disappointed to hear this.

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.

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.

Dumb it.

Move to something else.

This is how fuckery starts.