8 ms·

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 thei

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 6mo 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 6mo ago
  [deleted]
cge 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
- Marsymars 6mo ago
  It's a bit funny to be relying on copyright for a license to work when the copyright will eventually expire.
  - dragonwriter 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
[deleted]
stackghost 6mo ago
Given that it's a Russian company, serious question: does anyone care about violating their license? If so, why?
- john_strinlai 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.)

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 6mo 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 6mo ago
[deleted]

cge 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
Marsymars 6mo ago
It's a bit funny to be relying on copyright for a license to work when the copyright will eventually expire.
- dragonwriter 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago

[deleted]

stackghost 6mo ago

Given that it's a Russian company, serious question: does anyone care about violating their license? If so, why?

john_strinlai 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.)