4 ms·

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

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 6mo 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 6mo ago
[deleted]
bundie 6mo 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 6mo 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. […]”
  - kube-system 6mo ago
    That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission. But, same result, because it also says: > 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. A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.
    - X-Ryl669 6mo ago
      The license contains (section 7): > [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 > > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or > authors of the material; or > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some > trade names, trademarks, or service marks; So the requirement of branding and attribution aren't "further restriction" (which, in this context, means a restriction that is not in the AGPLv3 license text). It's after section 7's list of allowed restrictions, which, paragraph b, contains "require preservation of [...] legal notices or [...] attributions", paragraph d is made to prevent misuse of the original author reputation, and paragraph e to prevent misuse of trademarks, so they, IMHO, are all legitimate.
      - kube-system 6mo ago
        Yes, preservation of [...] author attributions --- not branding or logos These are different things. However, I did glance at the repo and I don't see any attributions, either.
      - NetMageSCW 6mo ago
        The branding requirement is a further restriction because that isn’t one of the permitted changes by 7(b) - it is neither an author attribution nor a ALN.
- kube-system 6mo ago
  Their lawyer is right about everything except: > - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use. Section 7 allows you to add permissions, but it prohibits any restrictions beyond the options listed in section 7.
  - X-Ryl669 6mo ago
    That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.
    - kube-system 6mo ago
      No, logos and trademarks are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions". It's simply not what those words mean. A "legal notice" is some sort of legally relevant document. An "author attribution" is a plaintext recognition of the original copyright holder. If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice

formerly_proven 6mo 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 6mo ago

[deleted]

bundie 6mo 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 6mo 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. […]”
- kube-system 6mo ago
  That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission. But, same result, because it also says: > 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. A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.
  - X-Ryl669 6mo ago
    The license contains (section 7): > [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 > > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or > authors of the material; or > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some > trade names, trademarks, or service marks; So the requirement of branding and attribution aren't "further restriction" (which, in this context, means a restriction that is not in the AGPLv3 license text). It's after section 7's list of allowed restrictions, which, paragraph b, contains "require preservation of [...] legal notices or [...] attributions", paragraph d is made to prevent misuse of the original author reputation, and paragraph e to prevent misuse of trademarks, so they, IMHO, are all legitimate.
    - kube-system 6mo ago
      Yes, preservation of [...] author attributions --- not branding or logos These are different things. However, I did glance at the repo and I don't see any attributions, either.
    - NetMageSCW 6mo ago
      The branding requirement is a further restriction because that isn’t one of the permitted changes by 7(b) - it is neither an author attribution nor a ALN.
kube-system 6mo ago
Their lawyer is right about everything except: > - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use. Section 7 allows you to add permissions, but it prohibits any restrictions beyond the options listed in section 7.
- X-Ryl669 6mo ago
  That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.
  - kube-system 6mo ago
    No, logos and trademarks are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions". It's simply not what those words mean. A "legal notice" is some sort of legally relevant document. An "author attribution" is a plaintext recognition of the original copyright holder. If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice