• Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    If that wasn’t on purpose than that was a big fuckup. I was sometimes thinking about testing Bitwarden but with this volatile license situation I’m not interested anymore.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      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.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

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

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            28 days ago

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

            • shrodes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 days 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.