3 ms·

GPLv3 is interesting because it means to use their code in a commercial setting, then you must also have the guts to open source too.

hk1337 2y ago
I don’t believe that is entirely accurate. I believe it depends on the application and what you’re doing with it whether or not you would be required to open source it. Like, if you’re distributing the application as a product, not necessarily saas application?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Yes, this is why AGPL is superior.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Yes, GPL3 only works for directly distributed software. But an important part of BitWarden is exactly such software, in the form of a browser extension.
odo1242 2y ago
Not necessarily. You can run a “Bitwarden hosting service” or something like that without violating GPL. You’d only have to make your changes available on request if you changed the actual Bitwarden source code or linked some other library into it and shared that modified version with someone else (just running it on a server doesn’t mean you need to open source changes, for example)
- hedora 2y ago
  Yeah; GPLv3 seems designed to give pure *aaS companies an unfair advantage over people that want to give users the option to buy commercially supported hardware that runs the company's software. For instance, Google can use bash in their backend infrastructure, but Apple cannot ship it on MacBooks or iOS anymore.
  - jcotton42 2y ago
    > Yeah; GPLv3 seems designed to give pure *aaS companies an unfair advantage over people that want to give users the option to buy commercially supported hardware that runs the company's software. SaaS didn't exist when the GPL was drafted. If that's an issue for you, there's the AGPL.
    - alwayslikethis 2y ago
      > SaaS didn't exist when the GPL was drafted If you mean v3, this isn't true. AGPLv3 is written the same time as GPLv3, and references each other to maintain compatibility (a special provision that lets you use code in the other license provided you follow the other license for that component)
npteljes 2y ago
Not if offered as a service. That's why they introduced the AGPL, that one has the service restriction too. In terms of a service offering, GPL software is free for the taking, and the restrictions don't apply as the distribution clause doesn't trigger.
sublimefire 2y ago
The context is inaccurate because it is actually dual licensed so thinking about GPLv3 alone is not painting the whole picture. > The default license throughout the repository is your choice of GPL v3.0 OR BITWARDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE unless the header specifies another license. Anything contained within a directory named bitwarden_license is covered solely by the BITWARDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE.

hk1337 2y ago

I don’t believe that is entirely accurate. I believe it depends on the application and what you’re doing with it whether or not you would be required to open source it. Like, if you’re distributing the application as a product, not necessarily saas application?

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Yes, this is why AGPL is superior.
nine_k 2y ago
Yes, GPL3 only works for directly distributed software. But an important part of BitWarden is exactly such software, in the form of a browser extension.

odo1242 2y ago

Not necessarily. You can run a “Bitwarden hosting service” or something like that without violating GPL. You’d only have to make your changes available on request if you changed the actual Bitwarden source code or linked some other library into it and shared that modified version with someone else (just running it on a server doesn’t mean you need to open source changes, for example)

hedora 2y ago
Yeah; GPLv3 seems designed to give pure *aaS companies an unfair advantage over people that want to give users the option to buy commercially supported hardware that runs the company's software. For instance, Google can use bash in their backend infrastructure, but Apple cannot ship it on MacBooks or iOS anymore.
- jcotton42 2y ago
  > Yeah; GPLv3 seems designed to give pure *aaS companies an unfair advantage over people that want to give users the option to buy commercially supported hardware that runs the company's software. SaaS didn't exist when the GPL was drafted. If that's an issue for you, there's the AGPL.
  - alwayslikethis 2y ago
    > SaaS didn't exist when the GPL was drafted If you mean v3, this isn't true. AGPLv3 is written the same time as GPLv3, and references each other to maintain compatibility (a special provision that lets you use code in the other license provided you follow the other license for that component)

npteljes 2y ago

Not if offered as a service. That's why they introduced the AGPL, that one has the service restriction too. In terms of a service offering, GPL software is free for the taking, and the restrictions don't apply as the distribution clause doesn't trigger.

sublimefire 2y ago

The context is inaccurate because it is actually dual licensed so thinking about GPLv3 alone is not painting the whole picture. > The default license throughout the repository is your choice of GPL v3.0 OR BITWARDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE unless the header specifies another license. Anything contained within a directory named bitwarden_license is covered solely by the BITWARDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE.