On 2019-12-01 22:38:05 UTC, Joe ⁽⁵²⁷⁶⁾ wrote:

Violation of GNU General Public License v3.0, which BitWarden's code is licensed under.

According to BitWarden's GitHub, all the code running BitWarden is released under the 'GNU General Public License v3.0'.
You you are free to do the following with the code: Commercial use, Modification, Distribution, Patent use, Private use.

So when BitWarden's T.o.S. says "You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, ... any portion of the Service..." this is in violation of the licence for which the code is released.
Because according to the licence you are allowed to "Reproduce", "Duplicate", or "Copy" any portion of the service, you just have to use a different name and site your source.

(just like OwnCloud (paid) and NextCloud (Free))

Source:
https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://github.com/bitwarden/desktop/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://github.com/bitwarden/cli/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://github.com/bitwarden/web/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

On 2020-12-14 19:56:25 UTC, Agnes_de_Lion ^(20760) Staff wrote:

changes-requested: I've checked what you said and indeed that's weird! I suggest to change the title to make it more comprehensive but keeping it in the same case. You could put this one "The license used by the service is in violation of the licence for which the code is released" as you wrote above.
Besides, I think your comment could be on the analysis too (without the sources).

On 2021-02-15 00:01:41 UTC, System ^(21311) Bot wrote:

DECLINED
Point automatically declined as no activity have been monitored over a course of 2 months. Was: changes-requested