FSF to OnlyOffice: You Can't Use the GNU (A)GPL to Take Software Freedom Away - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
181743924
story
Nextcloud joined a project to create a sovereign replacement for Microsoft Office called "Euro-Office". But after that project forked OnlyOffice, OnlyOffice
suspended its partnership with Nextcloud
. "They removed all references to our brand/attribute as required by our license,"
argued OnlyOffice CEO Lev Bannov
on March 30th. ("The core issue here isn't just about what the AGPL license states, but about the additional provisions we, as the authors, have included... If the Euro-Office team believes our approach conflicts with the AGPLv3 license, we invite them to submit an official request to FSF for review.")
But this week
the FSF responded
(as "the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses"), criticizing OnlyOffice's "attempt to impose an additional restriction on the AGPLv3" and calling it "inconsistent with the freedoms granted by the license," in a blog post from FSF licensing/compliance manager Krzysztof Siewicz:
It is possible to modify the (A)GPLv3 with additional terms, but
only
by adhering to the terms of the license... The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3. It states, "[i]f 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"...
We urge OnlyOffice to clarify the situation by making it unambiguous that OnlyOffice is licensed under the AGPLv3, and that users who already received copies of the software are allowed to remove any further restrictions. Additionally, if they intend to continue to use the AGPLv3 for future releases, they should state clearly that the program is licensed under the AGPLv3 and make sure they remove any further restrictions from their program documentation and source code. Confusing users by attaching further restrictions to any of the FSF's family of GNU General Public Licenses is not in line with free software.
"If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative," OnlyOffice's CEO had written in March. "However, if the decision goes against us,
we are ready to consider other options
."
Related Links
US Government Now Wants Anthropic's 'Mythos', Preparing for AI Cybersecurity Threats
OnlyOffice Suspends Nextcloud Partnership For Forking Its Project Without Approval
20-Year-Old Enters Prison for Historic Breach, Ransoming of Massive Student Database
FSF to OnlyOffice: You Can't Use the GNU (A)GPL to Take Software Freedom Away
More
Reply
FSF to OnlyOffice: You Can't Use the GNU (A)GPL to Take Software Freedom Away
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This is like
Score:
, Interesting)
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
on Saturday April 18, 2026 @11:47AM (
#66100066
having a tantrum and threatening to pick up your bat and ball and go home. Except there are other bats and balls already laying around. Identical ones even. This seems like a completely self-destroying empty threat. If OnlyOffice goes closed source it doesn't matter, there is already a fork for the wider community to continue working on even in a capacity that may be funded by Nextcloud or similar organisations.
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
TheMiddleRoad
( 1153113 )
writes:
Yep. OnlyOffice wants their hosting money. They want control. They're the assholes.
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Valgrus Thunderaxe
( 8769977 )
writes:
It speaks volumes that the EU wants to use Russian software over US software.
Re:
Score:
by
TheMiddleRoad
( 1153113 )
writes:
It's open source. Parts were Russian developed.
Re:This is like
Score:
, Informative)
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
on Saturday April 18, 2026 @01:05PM (
#66100198
Homepage
It's a Latvian company. They used to make and sell a Russian fork called R7-Office. The Russian business operation was spun off in 2019 as a separate entity, and since 2023 they do not share a codebase or cooperate with R7-Office. If you believe them.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
If you believe others the Latvian company was a subsidiary of a Russian company so they could sell a fork of the Russian R7-Office in the EU. Lots of finger pointing back and forward about who is the original and who is the master.
The only thing clear is that there was definitely a link between the companies.
Re:
Score:
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
I mean, yeah. The details surrounding how exactly the Russian business was handed off are sparse.
Either way, I don't trust a word anyone from OnlyOffice says.
Re:
Score:
by
Mr. Dollar Ton
( 5495648 )
writes:
Yes, it is like a Judas Epstein betraying Doctor Jesus Trump Superstar with a kiss.
Re:
Score:
by
demon driver
( 1046738 )
writes:
In the moment the Nextcloud people forked it, the fork has become European software.
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
It speaks volumes that the EU wants to use Russian software over US software.
Actually it's complicated. On first glance it was a Latvian product from a Latvian company. You need to do some real digging to get back at the Russian roots - few of which are in English.
Re: This is like
Score:
by
nipslan
( 2604693 )
writes:
Not really it's pretty clear matching the timeline to the sanctions on Russia.
Re:
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
It speaks volumes that the EU wants to use Russian software over US software.
Just like them buying Russian oil, even while pleading for the continuation of NATO
Re: This is like
Score:
by
diffract
( 7165501 )
writes:
It's exactly the reason you should be using it
Re:
Score:
by
dgatwood
( 11270 )
writes:
Yep. OnlyOffice wants their hosting money. They want control. They're the assholes.
Maybe that's true, but I'm not getting that from the summary. What I'm getting is:
OnlyOffice spent a decade developing their office code, distributing code that they authored under a modified AGPL license that requires attribution to be preserved.
EuroOffice removed the attribution.
If EuroOffice removed attribution requirements only on code that was created by someone else other than OnlyOffice, and did not use the code authored by OnlyOffice, then they're fine. But I think courts have already ruled that t
Re:
Score:
by
dgatwood
( 11270 )
writes:
Here you go.
[opensource.org]
Re:
Score:
by
dfghjk
( 711126 )
writes:
"...there is already a fork for the wider community to continue working on even in a capacity that may be funded by Nextcloud or similar organisations."
So? That doesn't mean that any such work would be valuable. And it doesn't matter that a fork already exists, a fork could be made tomorrow. Closing source code does not remove the existence of previous open source code.
What matters is who is doing the work, and what the quality of that work is. Absolutely none of this is concerned with what matters, only
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
Indeed. Welcome to my point. A large portion of open source development is a community driven effort. Closing the source doesn't remove the open source, it removes the community.
We have ample evidence of multiple projects that have gone down this path and have all cratered as a result while their forks have thrived. The ball game will continue even if one player throws a tantrum.
Niche debate
Score:
by
will4
( 7250692 )
writes:
It's good that we are beyond the endless debates and angst of the "protester lifestyle class" license advocates and other open source software advocates.
We can focus on getting to the important tasks of building an open source idiot developer proof router OS image and replacing other known perpetual security risk software.
AGPL3 & removing author credits
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
From what I have followed, all they seem to want is that
their
role in creating this software not be erased by removing their credits from the original source code. That's something that even the BSDL requires.
Maybe OnlyOffice could re-license their software under the BSDL or Apache licenses, so that they don't get stabbed in the back by the FSF
Re:
Score:
by
moronoxyd
( 1000371 )
writes:
You are wrong.
And you should take note that this is about OnlyOffice, not OpenOffice. Somerwhere along the way you switched from one to the other, showing how little care you take with your "arguments".
Re: standard FSF overreach
Score:
by
TuballoyThunder
( 534063 )
writes:
There you go, using facts. We don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Re:
Score:
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
As usual, dfghjk has a hard time with reading comprehension.
Re: standard FSF overreach
Score:
, Informative)
by
jgdnavy
( 3688251 )
writes:
on Saturday April 18, 2026 @01:25PM (
#66100236
OnlyOffice explicitly uses AGPL.
[onlyoffice.com]. They are trying to make the argument that they are allowed to do this by claiming their logo is a legal notice, and it's ok to require the retention of legal notices. FSF says the branding doesn't meet the definition of legal notice, so the requirement is null.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
Elektroschock
( 659467 )
writes:
The FSF is no Court, it has no authority over it whatsoever.
Re:standard FSF overreach
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Local ID10T
( 790134 )
writes:
ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com
on Saturday April 18, 2026 @01:26PM (
#66100240
Homepage
The FSF holds copyright on the AGPLv3. In order to use the AGPLv3, you must comply with
the license on the license
A version of the AGPLv3 that is modified without the permission of the FSF is not valid, as it does not comply with the license on the AGPLv3.
You could write your own license using very similar terms to the AGPLv3 plus other terms you have specified, but if you refer to it as "AGPLv3" it must be the AGPLv3 as provided by the FSF (per the license on the AGPLv3).
This entire debate has happened before.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Openoffice is NOT OnlyOffice, so most of your argument is invalid, or at least misaimed.
You even mistakenly looked up the license for the entirely WRONG PRODUCT, and then attempted to use that as a point in your favor. EditorDavid isn't the person making the mistake in the summary here... it's you.
Dumb CEOs Can't Read
Score:
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
If your goal was to enforce additional restrictions on any future forked works (or prevent others from forking altogether), you shouldn't have used an open source license at all, you fucking dolts. GPL/AGPL literally exists to prevent further restrictions and always has, and I think everyone at the company knows that. If they wanted to pretend to be open source and enforce their license additions, then they should have written their own.
OnlyOffice's CEO, Lev Bannov, is a fucking moron who is wrong, knows he
Have *you* actually read it???
Score:
by
Alexey Nogin
( 10307 )
writes:
AGPL:
7. Additional Terms.
[...]
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) 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
[...]
All
other
non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10
(emphasis mine)
OpenOffice license includes:
Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original
Product logo when distributing the program.
So there is an actual subtle question here - does "original Product logo" count as "reasonable legal notices or author attributions" within the meaning of AGPL 7(b)? But hey, who wants to read when the accused others of no reading?!
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Be careful here, OpenOffice and OnlyOffice, while they both start with O, are entirely separate products written (and administrated) by different people.
This is rather odd, as most companies want their official branding REMOVED from derivative works, with attribution in source code or provided in written legal notices.
Defining a logo as a legal notice is a rather significant departure from anyone else I've seen try to use the AGPL.
Re: Have *you* actually read it???
Score:
by
Alexey Nogin
( 10307 )
writes:
Oops, I think this was a typo or autocorrect error - but I was citing the correct OnlyOffice license.
Re: Have *you* actually read it???
Score:
by
Alexey Nogin
( 10307 )
writes:
To respond to the actual point - requiring an authorship notice is clearly allowed. Requiring that it be in a specific graphical form - seems to me like way too far. But I also did not like how FSF dismissed it as completely disallowed, without any acknowledgement that a less onerous/ less specific authorship acknowledgement would have been clearly OK - dudes, you are the ones that included a list of allowed restrictions, do not now act as if it's absolutely preposterous to consider that any restrictions mi
Re:
Score:
by
Excelcia
( 906188 )
writes:
FSF is responding to this:
Can I remove ONLYOFFICE logo or change it to my own?
According to Section 7 of the GNU Affero General Public License v.3 (AGPL v.3) we're permitted to supplement terms of this License requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices. Using this permission we do not allow you to remove the original ONLYOFFICE logo from ONLYOFFICE products and components or change it to your own one. The interactive user interfaces in modified source and object code versions of the Program must display Appropriate Legal Notices, as required under Section 5 of the GNU AGPL version 3. To discuss any co-branding issues feel free to write to our sales department at sales@onlyoffice.com.
( from
[onlyoffice.com] )
Not the idea of requiring attributions.
As OnlyOffice wrote that, it is clearly an attempt at a disallowed further restriction. FSF isn't speaking toward authorship attributions in general. They are speaking to that. And that was an egregious overreach attempting to use the license as a restrictive weapon. "You can't use this anywhere that changes our logo and if you want to then you have to pay us" is not what free software or softwar
Re:
Score:
by
Elektroschock
( 659467 )
writes:
The FSF is not a court and has not authority here. Falsa demonstratio non nocet.
Contracts are generally not copyrightable in Europe, I wonder if the AGPL would qualify as a copyrightable work.
Re:
Score:
by
jgdnavy
( 3688251 )
writes:
OnlyOffice is specifically using the AGPL as written by FSF, so FSF's interpretation of the license, while perhaps not legally binding, is germane. It's worth noting, however, that it is not possible to modify and redistribute OnlyOffice and comply with their interpretations. They claim that it is a requirement to maintain their logo to comply with legal notice and attribution requirements, but also disallow use of their trademarks, which includes their logo.
Re:
Score:
by
Elektroschock
( 659467 )
writes:
In any case they can try to sue Nextcloud which Frank is known to not shy away from.
Re:
Score:
by
Alexey Nogin
( 10307 )
writes:
Interesting, did not see that. So that are claiming the logo is a legal notice, not an attribution? That seems to me like a much more obvious overreach than when I thought they were [ab]using the permission to require attribution.
Re:
Score:
by
jgdnavy
( 3688251 )
writes:
They seem to somewhat waffle on that. Their FAQ calls it a legal notice, but in some of their communications, they refer to it as attribution. It's worth noting that they do have conflicting terms. They claim that by paragraph 7(b) they can insist that you maintain their logo, but they also use 7(e) to deny use of their trademarks. They state several places they are open source, not FOSS, but they are trying to have it both ways by claiming a FOSS license.
xGPL allows SALE of xGPLed s/w
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
....They are speaking to that. And that was an egregious overreach attempting to use the license as a restrictive weapon. "You can't use this anywhere that changes our logo and if you want to then you have to pay us" is not what free software or software freedoms are about.
Attributions are one thing. Trying to use the license to require that certain functionality remain is another.
I know that RMS had been kicked out as the head of the FSF, but one point he always made about the word "Free" in "free software" was the "libre, not gratis" argument: people
are allowed to sell free software
. Once one allows that, one can't claim that a seller can't have a tiered pricing structure, if you will, where the price is $X if one uses the software w/ the license as-is, vs $(X+Y) if one wants to change the terms of the license
I know that the FSF likes throwing its weight around, but it might w
Re:
Score:
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
Logos and branding are neither a Legal Notice nor author attribution. But that isn't even what this is really about. The real problem is OnlyOffice added restrictive language to the license and then said while referencing the added language "per the AGPLv3...". No, not per the AGPLv3, it's per OnlyOffice's extra terms. That's like adding chocolate chips to vanilla ice cream and then trying to claim it's still just regular vanilla ice cream - no it's not.
Lev Bannov is trying to play the innocent imbecile who
Re:
Score:
by
Alexey Nogin
( 10307 )
writes:
I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not their lawyer, but if I had to defend their position, there can be made an argument that logo (that mostly just says "ONLYOFFICE" with a small image) is just the author attribution - and the AGPL does not explicitly specify whether the authorship attribution requirement might require a specific format for the attribution. But earlier in this thread Excelcia cited OnlyOffice as using the required legal notices as justification, and to me that's an obviously unjustifi
Re:
Score:
by
Bahbus
( 1180627 )
writes:
I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not their lawyer, but if I had to defend their position, there can be made an argument that logo (that mostly just says "ONLYOFFICE" with a small image) is just the author attribution
At best, the only author attribution that would be needed would be that SOMEWHERE they state this was forked from OnlyOffice at some point. If the OnlyOffice code has specific author attributions (i.e. "contributed by John Smith"), they would probably also have to keep that unless they significantly reworked, or removed, that code.
it is disingenuous to imply that the CEO would have known he is obviously wrong if he just read enough of the license to realize it disallows all additional restrictions
No. It's really not. He knew better, decided to get away with it as long as he can, and then just pivot to closed source as soon as someone makes a (legit) fuss. I know this is tr
Re:
Score:
by
jgdnavy
( 3688251 )
writes:
The problem is that they also restrict you from using their trademarks. It seems you are both supposed to use their branding and prohibited from doing so.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
Defining a logo as a legal notice is a rather significant departure from anyone else I've seen try to use the AGPL.
This is reminiscent of Sega v. Accolade. Do they have published requirements for the use of their logo? In which case this license requirement would be an attempt to graft those terms onto the AGPL?
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
393
comments
Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers
381
comments
Scott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
359
comments
'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way'
341
comments
A Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say
339
comments
The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline
next
20-Year-Old Enters Prison for Historic Breach, Ransoming of Massive Student Database
50
comments
previous
US Government Now Wants Anthropic's 'Mythos', Preparing for AI Cybersecurity Threats
24
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.
Close
Working...