Hacker News Reader

> 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?

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.

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.

Fair. I didn't know Bitwarden was open-core. In light of this, accidental packaging mixup sounds plausible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com