sdk-sm

> [O]ur goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility. This does, though: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898#issuecomment-242... It seems they reconsidered after the change impacted their F-Droid release. They've always been Open Core not fully Open Source so the SDK not being OSS isn't surprising. It just seems like they didn't think about the consequences of integrating a non-OSS SDK into their OSS clients. Your first quote actually explicitly says that this incompatibility only became apparent after the fact: > one thought that came to mind in evaluating this So, yeah, a mistake although it's not so much they "forgot to change the license" but didn't consider which license it should use and stuck with the default. > There are no plans to adjust the SDK license at this time This doesn't mea

> Very clearly a packaging issue that got blown out of proportion. CTO: > There are no plans to adjust the SDK license at this time. We will continue to publish to our own F-Droid repo at https://mobileapp.bitwarden.com/fdroid/repo/ https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898 Doesn't seem like a mistake or unintentional action.

> forgot to change the license on a component from our internal default". https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/15353#... > Additionally, one thought that came to mind in evaluating this that might make this not possible is that our rust SDK, a dependency, is not published under an OSS license. See https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk . I assume that is a problem that might disqualify us from the main [fdroid] repo still. https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/15353#... > At the moment, there are no plans to adjust the SDK license. Doesn't sound like a mistake: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898#issuecomment-222... > There are no plans to adjust the SDK license at this time. We will continue to publish to our own F-Droid repo at https://mobileapp.bitwarden.com/fdroid/repo/

This doesn't look like a bug: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898

I don't think it was a bug. They dismissed it and clearly said that they had no intention to adjust the license: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898.

How would you explain that[1]? 1. https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898#issuecomment-222...

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.

> There are no plans to adjust the SDK license at this time. We will continue to publish to our own F-Droid repo at https://mobileapp.bitwarden.com/fdroid/repo/ https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898#issuecomment-222... This was a reply in July, where someone raised this issue already on the SDK repository, which has this license since over a year ago.