Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by froggerexpert 605 days ago
> But one bad release with a license screw up and nobody is willing to give them an inch?

I don't have a lot of context on the issue.

Is it clear it was just a packaging bug, rather than a move towards partially proprietary?
2 comments
ferbivore 604 days ago
The idea that this is was "just a packaging bug" is damage control by Bitwarden. It was a deliberate change, per the CTO's comment on https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898 and elsewhere. They slowly worked their way towards adding this SDK dependency to every client, and the SDK was intentionally not open-source. The public outrage is the only reason Bitwarden is GPLv3 again.
link
odo1242 605 days ago
Yeah - they've always used an open-core licensing model with like a few features (used only by business users/applications) behind a proprietary license. They just ended up mixing the code in a way such that the (theoretically open-source) app ended up having some utility functions for the business version mixed in. Since the client apps don't use that functionality, they split the repository so that you can build the app without using any proprietary code.
link
froggerexpert 604 days ago
Fair. I didn't know Bitwarden was open-core. In light of this, accidental packaging mixup sounds plausible.
link