4 ms·

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
  > 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 That's fair, I'd just argue it's akin to to Red Hat's current model of "All of our code is free and open source...but if any of our business subscribers share it, we will terminate their license."
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    It's not even that -- OnlyOffice hasn't terminated anyone's license. It's more like: Linus allows me to fork Linux but he's not going to join a Zoom call with one my customers.
- slabity 7mo ago
  > 1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated The part of the license violated was the removal of OnlyOffice's trademark and branding. Yet their license does not provide a right to use their trademark and branding. Those rights are still fully reserved by OnlyOffice. This allows OnlyOffice to use legal means to shut down any fork or changes they are not comfortable with.
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    I said "OnlyOffice is claiming" intentionally -- if it's BS then it's BS. I don't see anything in AGPLv3 that allows them to require branding, only attribution. Still, you can (and often will) terminate a business partnership over BS arguments.
  - X-Ryl669 7mo ago
    I think you're claiming wrong stuff here. AGPLv3 section 7 paragraph b) expressively authorize the author to require an attribution in the derived work or copy. What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution, so they actually mooted their own right to use the code under that license. There's nothing related to trademark or branding violation here. If OnlyOffice attacked Nextcloud for using their TM or brand for respecting the license, they would be debunked at a trial (if it even reach a trial), since they expressively allowed the use of the attribution in distributing their work with this license. Note: This license doesn't give you the right to use the branding of OnlyOffice on a derived product and claim it's yours or you're acting as them, that's a complete different usage case here.
    - kube-system 7mo ago
      You're right, the branding claim here is BS but attribution requirements are legit. I only took a cursory glance at their repo, but I don't see any copyright notices for OnlyOffice in EuroOffice. There should be.
    - slabity 7mo ago
      OnlyOffice didn't distribute under a pure AGPLv3 license. They made modifications to it. On line 655 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LIC... > Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks. And on line 17 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors/blob/master/LIC... > Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software. IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.
fragmede 7mo ago
Shhh! Nobody tell Redhat.

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
> 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 That's fair, I'd just argue it's akin to to Red Hat's current model of "All of our code is free and open source...but if any of our business subscribers share it, we will terminate their license."
- kube-system 7mo ago
  It's not even that -- OnlyOffice hasn't terminated anyone's license. It's more like: Linus allows me to fork Linux but he's not going to join a Zoom call with one my customers.
slabity 7mo ago
> 1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated The part of the license violated was the removal of OnlyOffice's trademark and branding. Yet their license does not provide a right to use their trademark and branding. Those rights are still fully reserved by OnlyOffice. This allows OnlyOffice to use legal means to shut down any fork or changes they are not comfortable with.
- kube-system 7mo ago
  I said "OnlyOffice is claiming" intentionally -- if it's BS then it's BS. I don't see anything in AGPLv3 that allows them to require branding, only attribution. Still, you can (and often will) terminate a business partnership over BS arguments.
- X-Ryl669 7mo ago
  I think you're claiming wrong stuff here. AGPLv3 section 7 paragraph b) expressively authorize the author to require an attribution in the derived work or copy. What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution, so they actually mooted their own right to use the code under that license. There's nothing related to trademark or branding violation here. If OnlyOffice attacked Nextcloud for using their TM or brand for respecting the license, they would be debunked at a trial (if it even reach a trial), since they expressively allowed the use of the attribution in distributing their work with this license. Note: This license doesn't give you the right to use the branding of OnlyOffice on a derived product and claim it's yours or you're acting as them, that's a complete different usage case here.
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    You're right, the branding claim here is BS but attribution requirements are legit. I only took a cursory glance at their repo, but I don't see any copyright notices for OnlyOffice in EuroOffice. There should be.
  - slabity 7mo ago
    OnlyOffice didn't distribute under a pure AGPLv3 license. They made modifications to it. On line 655 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LIC... > Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks. And on line 17 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors/blob/master/LIC... > Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software. IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.

fragmede 7mo ago

Shhh! Nobody tell Redhat.