7 ms·

OnlyOffice kills Nextcloud partnership for forking its project without approval

65 points by bundie 7mo ago

c-hendricks 7mo ago
Seems onlyoffice is "unforkable"? It's AGPL but has extra restrictions: you're required to show their logo but they don't give out rights for others to use their logo.
- bundie 7mo ago
  Yeah, LibreOffice and Nextcloud have both called OnlyOffice out, basically accusing it of being "open source" in name only [1][2] [1] https://www.neowin.net/news/libreoffice-blasts-fake-open-source-onlyoffice-for-working-with-microsoft-to-lock-users-in/ https://www.neowin.net/news/libreoffice-blasts-fake-open-sou... [2] https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onlyoffice-code-base https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onl...
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- cge 7mo ago
  >It's AGPL but has extra restrictions Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation.
  - zokier 7mo ago
    OnlyOffice claims that additional terms fall under section 7 of AGPLv3, which explicitly allows adding such terms. I think the point of contention arises from the interpretation of section 7 and more specifically this sentence: > When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section7 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section7 OnlyOffice claims: > In other words, AGPLv3 does not permit selective application: a recipient either accepts AGPLv3 in its entirety, including all additional conditions, or acquires no rights to use the software. > Any removal, disregard, or unilateral “exclusion” of conditions imposed under Section 7 constitutes use beyond the scope of the granted license and therefore a breach. https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/onlyoffice-flags-license-violations-in-euro-office-project-by-nextcloud-and-ionos https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/onlyoffice-flags-lic... To me (IANAL etc) that seems questionable. But I also say that the section 7 in entirety is not particularly clear. It says that you can add requirement of attribution but also that such additional term can be removed, so it seems rather pointless? See also this post from 2022: https://opensource.org/blog/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms-adds-legal-headaches https://opensource.org/blog/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms...
    - X-Ryl669 7mo ago
      I think you're confused by the term "permissions". You can give more freedom to the license and a copier can remove them as long as it doesn't remove the freedom that are in AGPLv3. The OnlyOffice team claim comes from the next paragraph of section 7: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License with terms: > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or This is what they did and what the other part stripped from their blatant copy. So no, removing the logo or the OnlyOffice terms therefore seems forbidden by the license itself, revoking it for the other part, thus they are now making a counterfeit.
      - zokier 7mo ago
        the license explicitly defines what "additional permissions" mean in that context: > "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions
        dragonwriter 7mo ago
        “Making exceptions to conditions” and “adding additional conditions” are literally opposed concepts, and the AGPL explicitly distinguishes between “additional permissions” and “further restrictions”. So, were OpenOffice bound by the original license without its additions, that would be problematic.
      - kube-system 7mo ago
        Author attribution, legally, doesn't refer to brands or logos. They're different things... e.g. the difference between [the disney logo] and "Copyright 2026 The Walt Disney Company"
    - kube-system 7mo ago
  - Marsymars 7mo ago
    It's a bit funny to be relying on copyright for a license to work when the copyright will eventually expire.
    - dragonwriter 7mo ago
      Licenses are permissions to use a privilege which some legal rule (e.g., copyright) makes exclusive. You don't need a license when a work is out of copyright. Its funny to be relying on copyright licenses when what people really want to to do is rewrite the law, but that's a different issue.
      - Marsymars 7mo ago
        I'm saying the copyright on the license will expire, at which point the parts of the license that rely on its own copyright will no longer be enforceable.
  - dragonwriter 7mo ago
    > Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? It can disallow downstream licensees from doing things with it, it can't prevent the copyright holder and licensor. > If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation. If it's a copyright violation of a copyright on the license, that has no effect on the effect of the license between the licensor and licensee, though it may result in money being owed by the licensor to the copyright holder on the license. OTOH, I think any US court would find that a party trying to control the legal effect of licensing arrangements between third parties by leveraging a copyright on license text is, itself, a fairly strong indication that the particular use of the license text at issue is outside of the scope of copyright protection. That's not protecting expression, it is instead creating a roadblock to the freedom of contract.
- kleiba 7mo ago
  Then it't not AGPL, because Section 10 of the AGPL explicitly states: | You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section10 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section10
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- stackghost 7mo ago
  Given that it's a Russian company, serious question: does anyone care about violating their license? If so, why?
  - john_strinlai 7mo ago
    if you make an exception to obeying licenses because "that person/company/country are bad" or whatever, exceptions start sneaking in all over the place, and the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards. edit: did not expect people to be in favor of blatantly ignoring licenses. huh. anyone want to tell me how we determine who the bad people are that we can ignore their licenses, and who the good people are where we will honor them? what is the criteria?
    - deaux 7mo ago
      China has been at this for centuries and is doing just fine. I can imagine Russia has too for a while and this in particular seems to have had very few negative consequences for them.
      - john_strinlai 7mo ago
        china also uses child labor, and are doing just fine. shall we adopt that practice as well? different in severity, but same logic.
        deaux 7mo ago
        Completely irrelevant. > the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards. It just disproves this entirely. China has been at it for decades, which entire fabric has detoriated? Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China?
        john_strinlai 7mo ago
        >which entire fabric has detoriated? the moral fabric of not stealing software and ignoring licenses. >Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China? uh, in china? apparently yes! if that is how you want the rest of the world to operate too, that is your opinion. i think it will suck, but whatever. selectively applied law is fun when the laws are selectively applied against people you dont like. just gotta make sure you never get put in the wrong pile.
- karel-3d 7mo ago
  from my reading, onlyoffice misread AGPL and the restrictions are not what section 7 meant; however that just means it's not really an AGPL licensed code as they are using AGPL wrong, not that NextCloud can just ignore it and treat it as AGPL. (if OnlyOffice is really all their code and not some other re-forked AGPL code. I haven't looked.)
AdmiralAsshat 7mo ago
If "forking without approval" is grounds for some kind of termination, then the project should probably not be considered truly "open source".
- kube-system 7mo ago
  1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated 2. Even if you fork a project in complete compliance with a software license, a software license doesn't grant you an ongoing business partnership
  - siruwastaken 7mo ago
    Question being did OnlyOffice terminate the business relationship in a legal way. Just because you dislike a companies trajectory doesn't necessarily immediately allow you to terminate business relations.
    - kube-system 7mo ago
      > Just because you dislike a companies trajectory doesn't necessarily immediately allow you to terminate business relations. Usually it does, barring contractual obligations otherwise
      - john_strinlai 7mo ago
        >Usually it does, barring contractual obligations otherwise i assume when they asked "legal way", contractual obligations was what they were referring to.
        kube-system 7mo ago
        It doesn't sound like there is any reason for one to exist in this particular situation, so it was a strange insinuation that one might exist.
  - AdmiralAsshat 7mo ago
gunalx 7mo ago
Only onlyoffice being petty. A good reason to use LibreOffice or Collabora instead.
- scblock 7mo ago
  Of course Collabora is also upset because LibreOffice resurrected their LibreOffice Online project (https://www.neowin.net/news/collabora-clashes-with-libreoffice-over-move-to-revive-libreoffice-online/ https://www.neowin.net/news/collabora-clashes-with-libreoffi...). These projects seem to be really struggling with the Freedom part of Free Software.
  - jrm4 7mo ago
    Right? Kinda weird; I wonder what tiny pie it is that they think they're fighting over, and what makes any of these individual projects think that they're powerful enough over the others (not saying they might not be)
  - Andrex 7mo ago
    Corporate dollars are zero sum, is why. It is in fact a real competition in that space.
t0mas88 7mo ago
Isn't the whole idea behind AGPL that you're allowed to fork and modify it as long as you provide your modified source code to the users?
- siruwastaken 7mo ago
  OnlyOffice was trying to implement some extra restrictions on top of the AGPL. Now they seem to be throwing a fit knowing that was not allowed. You can't bake your pie and eat it too.
  - X-Ryl669 7mo ago
    This is bullshit. Read section 7 paragraph b of the AGPLv3 license, and you'll see that OnlyOffice did what they were allowed to do. The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner which will likely cause more damage to them if OO's lawyer starts to have a look on this. People don't read license text, but they should, because they think AGPL is like GPL which is not the case, they are additional restrictions to the former.
    - john_strinlai 7mo ago
      >The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner are neowin and nextcloud affiliated somehow? or which nextcloud blog are you referring to?
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      The FSF has specifically stated that 7(b) does not apply to branding and requiring such is a violation of 7(b) that may be removed.
  - svpk 7mo ago
    > You can't bake your pie and eat it too. This seems like a corruption of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I'm somewhat confused as you can definitely both bake a pie and eat it too. Or are you trying to make some kind of point that I'm missing?
  - 7mo ago
MadVikingGod 7mo ago
I was wondering about how they came to the conclusion that they violated the copyright, so I went to check if they did the AGPL[1] with some extra clauses in it. Turns out they didn't, but they did change[2] it[3] in an interesting way: All the https urls in the GNU version are http urls. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt [2]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt [3]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/onlyoffice-nextcloud/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/onlyoffice-nextcloud/blob/mast...
- formerly_proven 7mo ago
  That's just the FSF editing the license text without updating the version number or date. https://web.archive.org/web/20160114094744/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20160114094744/https://www.gnu.o...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- bundie 7mo ago
  For the record, this is the argument ONLYOFFICE's lawyer is making: - ONLYOFFICE is under AGPLv3 since 2016. - AGPLv3 requires source disclosure, preserving the license, and keeping copyright notices. - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use. - You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software. - Ignoring these conditions is a license breach and copyright infringement.
  - cwillu 7mo ago
    > You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software. Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”
spacedoutman 7mo ago
They should have used malus.sh instead
- bundie 7mo ago
  Obviously.
dotdi 7mo ago
Important bit of information is further down in the article: OnlyOffice is Russian. I would therefore view any collaboration as a risk. It's not adequate for strategic reasons as well as sovereignty.
- vegadw 7mo ago
  If you need Docx compatibility to interface with the rest of the world, are you better off with the at-least open source option or the sign-your-life-in-eula-and-O365-subscription option. This isn't rhetorical. I don't know which is worse. I lean disliking Microsoft more, because jazz hands at Windows11, and OnlyOffice at least runs on Linux, but it's still not a fun position to be in. LibreOffice and other alts definitely don't have as good of Docx compat.
- user_7832 7mo ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted; it's quite possible that Nextcloud was more concerned about the political independence/potential sanctions aspect.
jimnotgym 7mo ago
Wow, how to alienate everyone.
davisr 7mo ago
Hey mods/dang, can you put this back on the front page please? No reason to bounce it. Important licensing discussion and relevant!
maxnoe 7mo ago
There is a section in the GitHub Readme of Eurooffice with a justification of the fork: https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onlyoffice-code-base https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onl...
627467 7mo ago
An example of how european "tech" reacts to threats. 2 european open source projects in litigation with each other and one of them engineered a license to prevent an obvious feature of open source software (forking) while the other is throwing shades at opacity and geopolitical control at the first.
jeremie_strand 7mo ago
[dead]
76rp 7mo ago
I agree with the posters above that OnlyOffice conflates retaining branding with retaining attribution. However, AGPL doesn't require retaining attributions other than copyright notices by default. Under section 7b, the copyright holder can specify which attributions to retain. Under 7b, OnlyOffice specified that forks must "retain the original Product logo". I agree with others that this is not a legitimate way to request attribution, and therefore this could be removed from the license. See section 7: >If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. Therefore, I think there is no obligation to attribute OnlyOffice, only to retain the original copyright notices. ---- Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that Euro-Office actually removed the logos from their fork. Can anybody find such a commit?
- 76rp 7mo ago
  https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/commit/90a473b99f8ca7bbfc3c91d7b0aa38b110ce8cc0 https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/commit/90a473b99f8ca7b...

65 points by bundie 7mo ago

Seems onlyoffice is "unforkable"? It's AGPL but has extra restrictions: you're required to show their logo but they don't give out rights for others to use their logo.

bundie 7mo ago
Yeah, LibreOffice and Nextcloud have both called OnlyOffice out, basically accusing it of being "open source" in name only [1][2] [1] https://www.neowin.net/news/libreoffice-blasts-fake-open-source-onlyoffice-for-working-with-microsoft-to-lock-users-in/ https://www.neowin.net/news/libreoffice-blasts-fake-open-sou... [2] https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onlyoffice-code-base https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onl...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
cge 7mo ago
>It's AGPL but has extra restrictions Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation.
- zokier 7mo ago
  OnlyOffice claims that additional terms fall under section 7 of AGPLv3, which explicitly allows adding such terms. I think the point of contention arises from the interpretation of section 7 and more specifically this sentence: > When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section7 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section7 OnlyOffice claims: > In other words, AGPLv3 does not permit selective application: a recipient either accepts AGPLv3 in its entirety, including all additional conditions, or acquires no rights to use the software. > Any removal, disregard, or unilateral “exclusion” of conditions imposed under Section 7 constitutes use beyond the scope of the granted license and therefore a breach. https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/onlyoffice-flags-license-violations-in-euro-office-project-by-nextcloud-and-ionos https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/onlyoffice-flags-lic... To me (IANAL etc) that seems questionable. But I also say that the section 7 in entirety is not particularly clear. It says that you can add requirement of attribution but also that such additional term can be removed, so it seems rather pointless? See also this post from 2022: https://opensource.org/blog/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms-adds-legal-headaches https://opensource.org/blog/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms...
  - X-Ryl669 7mo ago
    I think you're confused by the term "permissions". You can give more freedom to the license and a copier can remove them as long as it doesn't remove the freedom that are in AGPLv3. The OnlyOffice team claim comes from the next paragraph of section 7: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License with terms: > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or This is what they did and what the other part stripped from their blatant copy. So no, removing the logo or the OnlyOffice terms therefore seems forbidden by the license itself, revoking it for the other part, thus they are now making a counterfeit.
    - zokier 7mo ago
      the license explicitly defines what "additional permissions" mean in that context: > "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions
      - dragonwriter 7mo ago
        “Making exceptions to conditions” and “adding additional conditions” are literally opposed concepts, and the AGPL explicitly distinguishes between “additional permissions” and “further restrictions”. So, were OpenOffice bound by the original license without its additions, that would be problematic.
    - kube-system 7mo ago
      Author attribution, legally, doesn't refer to brands or logos. They're different things... e.g. the difference between [the disney logo] and "Copyright 2026 The Walt Disney Company"
  - kube-system 7mo ago
- Marsymars 7mo ago
  It's a bit funny to be relying on copyright for a license to work when the copyright will eventually expire.
  - dragonwriter 7mo ago
    Licenses are permissions to use a privilege which some legal rule (e.g., copyright) makes exclusive. You don't need a license when a work is out of copyright. Its funny to be relying on copyright licenses when what people really want to to do is rewrite the law, but that's a different issue.
    - Marsymars 7mo ago
      I'm saying the copyright on the license will expire, at which point the parts of the license that rely on its own copyright will no longer be enforceable.
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > Doesn't the AGPL specifically disallow that? It can disallow downstream licensees from doing things with it, it can't prevent the copyright holder and licensor. > If I understand correctly, the FSF has even directly threatened legal action against developers who add extra restrictions to the AGPL. The license text is copyrighted, does not allow modifications, and includes terms allowing the user to ignore any additional restrictions, so adding extra restrictions would seem to either be ineffective or a copyright violation. If it's a copyright violation of a copyright on the license, that has no effect on the effect of the license between the licensor and licensee, though it may result in money being owed by the licensor to the copyright holder on the license. OTOH, I think any US court would find that a party trying to control the legal effect of licensing arrangements between third parties by leveraging a copyright on license text is, itself, a fairly strong indication that the particular use of the license text at issue is outside of the scope of copyright protection. That's not protecting expression, it is instead creating a roadblock to the freedom of contract.
kleiba 7mo ago
Then it't not AGPL, because Section 10 of the AGPL explicitly states: | You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section10 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section10
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
stackghost 7mo ago
Given that it's a Russian company, serious question: does anyone care about violating their license? If so, why?
- john_strinlai 7mo ago
  if you make an exception to obeying licenses because "that person/company/country are bad" or whatever, exceptions start sneaking in all over the place, and the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards. edit: did not expect people to be in favor of blatantly ignoring licenses. huh. anyone want to tell me how we determine who the bad people are that we can ignore their licenses, and who the good people are where we will honor them? what is the criteria?
  - deaux 7mo ago
    China has been at this for centuries and is doing just fine. I can imagine Russia has too for a while and this in particular seems to have had very few negative consequences for them.
    - john_strinlai 7mo ago
      china also uses child labor, and are doing just fine. shall we adopt that practice as well? different in severity, but same logic.
      - deaux 7mo ago
        Completely irrelevant. > the entire fabric deteriorates quickly afterwards. It just disproves this entirely. China has been at it for decades, which entire fabric has detoriated? Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China?
        john_strinlai 7mo ago
        >which entire fabric has detoriated? the moral fabric of not stealing software and ignoring licenses. >Have licenses been meaningless for decades because of the existence of China? uh, in china? apparently yes! if that is how you want the rest of the world to operate too, that is your opinion. i think it will suck, but whatever. selectively applied law is fun when the laws are selectively applied against people you dont like. just gotta make sure you never get put in the wrong pile.
karel-3d 7mo ago
from my reading, onlyoffice misread AGPL and the restrictions are not what section 7 meant; however that just means it's not really an AGPL licensed code as they are using AGPL wrong, not that NextCloud can just ignore it and treat it as AGPL. (if OnlyOffice is really all their code and not some other re-forked AGPL code. I haven't looked.)

AdmiralAsshat 7mo ago

If "forking without approval" is grounds for some kind of termination, then the project should probably not be considered truly "open source".

kube-system 7mo ago
1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated 2. Even if you fork a project in complete compliance with a software license, a software license doesn't grant you an ongoing business partnership
- siruwastaken 7mo ago
  Question being did OnlyOffice terminate the business relationship in a legal way. Just because you dislike a companies trajectory doesn't necessarily immediately allow you to terminate business relations.
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    > Just because you dislike a companies trajectory doesn't necessarily immediately allow you to terminate business relations. Usually it does, barring contractual obligations otherwise
    - john_strinlai 7mo ago
      >Usually it does, barring contractual obligations otherwise i assume when they asked "legal way", contractual obligations was what they were referring to.
      - kube-system 7mo ago
        It doesn't sound like there is any reason for one to exist in this particular situation, so it was a strange insinuation that one might exist.
- AdmiralAsshat 7mo ago

gunalx 7mo ago

Only onlyoffice being petty. A good reason to use LibreOffice or Collabora instead.

scblock 7mo ago
Of course Collabora is also upset because LibreOffice resurrected their LibreOffice Online project (https://www.neowin.net/news/collabora-clashes-with-libreoffice-over-move-to-revive-libreoffice-online/ https://www.neowin.net/news/collabora-clashes-with-libreoffi...). These projects seem to be really struggling with the Freedom part of Free Software.
- jrm4 7mo ago
  Right? Kinda weird; I wonder what tiny pie it is that they think they're fighting over, and what makes any of these individual projects think that they're powerful enough over the others (not saying they might not be)
- Andrex 7mo ago
  Corporate dollars are zero sum, is why. It is in fact a real competition in that space.

t0mas88 7mo ago

Isn't the whole idea behind AGPL that you're allowed to fork and modify it as long as you provide your modified source code to the users?

siruwastaken 7mo ago
OnlyOffice was trying to implement some extra restrictions on top of the AGPL. Now they seem to be throwing a fit knowing that was not allowed. You can't bake your pie and eat it too.
- X-Ryl669 7mo ago
  This is bullshit. Read section 7 paragraph b of the AGPLv3 license, and you'll see that OnlyOffice did what they were allowed to do. The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner which will likely cause more damage to them if OO's lawyer starts to have a look on this. People don't read license text, but they should, because they think AGPL is like GPL which is not the case, they are additional restrictions to the former.
  - john_strinlai 7mo ago
    >The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner are neowin and nextcloud affiliated somehow? or which nextcloud blog are you referring to?
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    The FSF has specifically stated that 7(b) does not apply to branding and requiring such is a violation of 7(b) that may be removed.
- svpk 7mo ago
  > You can't bake your pie and eat it too. This seems like a corruption of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I'm somewhat confused as you can definitely both bake a pie and eat it too. Or are you trying to make some kind of point that I'm missing?
- 7mo ago

MadVikingGod 7mo ago

I was wondering about how they came to the conclusion that they violated the copyright, so I went to check if they did the AGPL[1] with some extra clauses in it. Turns out they didn't, but they did change[2] it[3] in an interesting way: All the https urls in the GNU version are http urls. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt [2]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt [3]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/onlyoffice-nextcloud/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/onlyoffice-nextcloud/blob/mast...

formerly_proven 7mo ago
That's just the FSF editing the license text without updating the version number or date. https://web.archive.org/web/20160114094744/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20160114094744/https://www.gnu.o...
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bundie 7mo ago
For the record, this is the argument ONLYOFFICE's lawyer is making: - ONLYOFFICE is under AGPLv3 since 2016. - AGPLv3 requires source disclosure, preserving the license, and keeping copyright notices. - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use. - You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software. - Ignoring these conditions is a license breach and copyright infringement.
- cwillu 7mo ago
  > You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software. Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”

spacedoutman 7mo ago

They should have used malus.sh instead

bundie 7mo ago
Obviously.

dotdi 7mo ago

Important bit of information is further down in the article: OnlyOffice is Russian. I would therefore view any collaboration as a risk. It's not adequate for strategic reasons as well as sovereignty.

vegadw 7mo ago
If you need Docx compatibility to interface with the rest of the world, are you better off with the at-least open source option or the sign-your-life-in-eula-and-O365-subscription option. This isn't rhetorical. I don't know which is worse. I lean disliking Microsoft more, because jazz hands at Windows11, and OnlyOffice at least runs on Linux, but it's still not a fun position to be in. LibreOffice and other alts definitely don't have as good of Docx compat.
user_7832 7mo ago
Not sure why you were downvoted; it's quite possible that Nextcloud was more concerned about the political independence/potential sanctions aspect.

jimnotgym 7mo ago

Wow, how to alienate everyone.

davisr 7mo ago

Hey mods/dang, can you put this back on the front page please? No reason to bounce it. Important licensing discussion and relevant!

maxnoe 7mo ago

There is a section in the GitHub Readme of Eurooffice with a justification of the fork: https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onlyoffice-code-base https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onl...

627467 7mo ago

An example of how european "tech" reacts to threats. 2 european open source projects in litigation with each other and one of them engineered a license to prevent an obvious feature of open source software (forking) while the other is throwing shades at opacity and geopolitical control at the first.

jeremie_strand 7mo ago

[dead]

76rp 7mo ago

I agree with the posters above that OnlyOffice conflates retaining branding with retaining attribution. However, AGPL doesn't require retaining attributions other than copyright notices by default. Under section 7b, the copyright holder can specify which attributions to retain. Under 7b, OnlyOffice specified that forks must "retain the original Product logo". I agree with others that this is not a legitimate way to request attribution, and therefore this could be removed from the license. See section 7: >If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. Therefore, I think there is no obligation to attribute OnlyOffice, only to retain the original copyright notices. ---- Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that Euro-Office actually removed the logos from their fork. Can anybody find such a commit?

76rp 7mo ago
https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/commit/90a473b99f8ca7bbfc3c91d7b0aa38b110ce8cc0 https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/commit/90a473b99f8ca7b...