1. The github-remote-id is old: now it is `bitwarden/clients`. 2. The LICENSE (`GPL-3`) is possibly incorrect: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/desktop-v2024.9.0/LICENSE.txt says: > Source code in this repository is covered by one of two licenses: (i) the > GNU General Public License (GPL) v3.0 (ii) the Bitwarden License v1.0. The > default license throughout the repository is GPL v3.0 unless the header > specifies another license. Bitwarden Licensed code is found only in the /bitwarden_license directory.
(In reply to Alexander Kurakin from comment #0) > 1. The github-remote-id is old: > now it is `bitwarden/clients`. > ok, will update it > > 2. The LICENSE (`GPL-3`) is possibly incorrect: > > https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/desktop-v2024.9.0/LICENSE.txt says: > > > Source code in this repository is covered by one of two licenses: (i) the > > GNU General Public License (GPL) v3.0 (ii) the Bitwarden License v1.0. The > > default license throughout the repository is GPL v3.0 unless the header > > specifies another license. Bitwarden Licensed code is found only in the > /bitwarden_license directory. I'm not sure if really need to add the Bitwarden specific license, as this package is binary release (no source code)..
(In reply to Yixun Lan from comment #1) > (In reply to Alexander Kurakin from comment #0) > > 2. The LICENSE (`GPL-3`) is possibly incorrect: > > > > https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/desktop-v2024.9.0/LICENSE.txt says: > > > > > Source code in this repository is covered by one of two licenses: (i) the > > > GNU General Public License (GPL) v3.0 (ii) the Bitwarden License v1.0. The > > > default license throughout the repository is GPL v3.0 unless the header > > > specifies another license. Bitwarden Licensed code is found only in the > > /bitwarden_license directory. > > I'm not sure if really need to add the Bitwarden specific license, as this > package is binary release (no source code).. That feelings when licences have 150x brighter private life than yours... Yes, the license in the (binary) .deb (https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/releases/tag/desktop-v2024.9.0) is `GPL-3.0`. P.S. v2024.10.1 version is out: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/releases/tag/desktop-v2024.10.1
If (and only if) any code from the bitwarden_license/ directory is used to build the binary, then that license must be added to LICENSE of the ebuild. In that case, and because the license appears to be an EULA, it would have to be added to the @EULA license group, and the ebuild would need mirror and bindist restrictions.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > If (and only if) any code from the bitwarden_license/ directory is used to > build the binary, then that license must be added to LICENSE of the ebuild. > > In that case, and because the license appears to be an EULA, it would have > to be added to the @EULA license group, and the ebuild would need mirror and > bindist restrictions. Looks like themselves don't know exactly: 1. you're correct, 2. technically we use `https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/releases/download/desktop-v${PV}/Bitwarden-${PV}-amd64.deb` and only it, 3. It's the line in it: `License: GPL-3.0`. See also: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611
(In reply to Alexander Kurakin from comment #4) > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > > If (and only if) any code from the bitwarden_license/ directory is used to > > build the binary, then that license must be added to LICENSE of the ebuild. > > > > In that case, and because the license appears to be an EULA, it would have > > to be added to the @EULA license group, and the ebuild would need mirror and > > bindist restrictions. > > Looks like themselves don't know exactly: > > 1. you're correct, > 2. technically we use > `https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/releases/download/desktop-v${PV}/ > Bitwarden-${PV}-amd64.deb` and only it, > 3. It's the line in it: `License: GPL-3.0`. > > See also: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611 so, the bitwarden_license/ is actually used. I will add BITWARDEN license for this. @ulm, I will send a PR, can you help to review it?
(In reply to Yixun Lan from comment #5) > (In reply to Alexander Kurakin from comment #4) > > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > > > If (and only if) any code from the bitwarden_license/ directory is used to > > > build the binary, then that license must be added to LICENSE of the ebuild. > > > > > > In that case, and because the license appears to be an EULA, it would have > > > to be added to the @EULA license group, and the ebuild would need mirror and > > > bindist restrictions. > > > > Looks like themselves don't know exactly: > > > > 1. you're correct, > > 2. technically we use > > `https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/releases/download/desktop-v${PV}/ > > Bitwarden-${PV}-amd64.deb` and only it, > > 3. It's the line in it: `License: GPL-3.0`. > > > > See also: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611 > > so, the bitwarden_license/ is actually used. Isn't the .deb's stronger?
Isn't the .deb's statement stronger?
Further / related discussions: * https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/39027, * https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/10648, * https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611, * https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk/issues/898, * https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11642.
quote: Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomment-2424865225 I'm on hold to this, as bitwarden upstream seems willing to solve the problem, let's wait and see..
