| ▲ | c-hendricks 5 hours 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. |
|
| ▲ | cge 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >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 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 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-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... | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's about adding permissions -- not adding restrictions. There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F, and then the statement: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. 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. | | |
| ▲ | zokier 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F OnlyOffice claims that their restrictions fall under the items b) and e) | | |
| ▲ | kube-system an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, b) does provide for attribution, which could be a valid claim here. But b) does not prohibit rebranding, nor does it require the use of branding to be used in any trade capacity as described under e). Referring to a brand in the capacity of providing attribution is entirely different than using a brand in the capacity of trade. Attributing someone is not the same as using their trademark. Ever write a "works cited" at the end of a report in school? They aren't full of logos, they don't imply that you are the author, (they state the opposite) and they certainly don't violate any trade laws. They are literally just lists of attributions. e.g. "This software is copyright OnlyOffice", or similar, is an attribution that does not violate any trademarks. It satisfies both b) and e). (although I will note that the license says "or" for each of those, but this probably isn't the intended interpretation) |
|
| |
| ▲ | X-Ryl669 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | “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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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" |
|
| |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | Marsymars 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a bit funny to be relying on copyright for a license to work when the copyright will eventually expire. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kleiba 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | bundie 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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-sou... [2] https://github.com/Euro-Office#euro-office-liberates-the-onl... |
| |
|
| ▲ | karel-3d 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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.) |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | stackghost 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Given that it's a Russian company, serious question: does anyone care about violating their license? If so, why? |
| |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, that sort of already did happen quickly in Feb 2022, with contracts a lot more significant than open source software... like when leases for 400 commercial jets were terminated over night, and Russia responded by seizing them. And the US started seizing yachts, real estate, and bank accounts of oligarchs. I'm not in favor of ignoring licenses, but practically speaking, they require legal nexus to function. | |
| ▲ | stackghost 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't usually buy slippery slope arguments. It's not like Russia currently respects the Rule of Law. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It's not like Russia currently respects the Rule of Law. but... we do? the argument is apparently that we also should ignore the rule of law. i dont think that would be a great idea for society, but i am just some dude. | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The argument is that we should only obey the rule of law with counterparties who reciprocate, rather than voluntarily hamstring ourselves for no benefit other than moral purity. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | right, damn pesky morals are always hamstringing human progress. my thinking is that once you start selectively applying rule of law to "good guys" and "bad guys" (or whatever criteria you pick), you have lost something really important. fingers crossed no one ever alters the criteria such that you fall on the "wrong" side! | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >my thinking is that once you start selectively applying rule of law to "good guys" and "bad guys" (or whatever criteria you pick), This is how the world already works. We do not inhabit an egalitarian utopia. There quite literally are bad guys. When you treat everyone like good guys, you end up with Donald Trump as the president instead of in jail. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai an hour ago | parent [-] | | i did not expect people to advocate for ignoring licenses, and further, arguing that the rule of law should be selectively applied. but, i am too old to expend energy trying to convince people that the rule of law loses all meaning if it is selectively applied. so, sure, fuck licenses. if someone pisses you off, just say they were born in the wrong country and steal their shit. thankfully i am retiring soon, so i probably wont see the winners of this race to the bottom. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you're entirely right. I also think that what you're warning about is already in the past, due to the practicalities of globalization. There are so many laws around the world that apply to "websites", that currently, you can't operate any sort of online presence anymore without at least implicitly picking and choosing which laws on the planet that you're going to follow. Nobody hires hundreds of lawyers in every country of the world to comply with every website law on the planet, and if you did, I bet you'd find you probably can't practically operate one. For example, the forum that we're on right now, doesn't comply with this law (although I believe HN blocks China anyway): https://www.cac.gov.cn/2022-06/17/c_1657089000974111.htm In reality, people hire a lawyer in the jurisdictions where they have legal exposure and follow those laws. This isn't to say that you should ignore software licenses, but rather sometimes, they're toothless instruments. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai a minute ago | parent [-] | | there is some interesting and nuanced discussion to be had with your main point, but >This isn't to say that you should ignore software licenses, [...] the main/only reason that i started this comment chain, and continued it, is that the other commenters are saying you should (if they are from the "wrong" country, anyways). |
| |
| ▲ | stackghost an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >i did not expect people to advocate for ignoring licenses > am too old to expend energy trying to convince people that the rule of law loses all meaning if it is selectively applied. Again, for what feels like the third or fourth time, this is already happening all over the globe. It's an open secret, for example, that the AI companies trained their models on pirated textbooks. It's not even an open secret, just the bare-faced truth, that the AI companies trained and continue to train on source-available software without regards for license. It's common knowledge that Russian and Chinese companies (among others) benefit from state-sponsored corporate espionage and sanctioned software piracy. The Rule of Law is dead in many countries, including the United States. There's literally nothing to be gained by not following suit. You can't pay your rent with ethics. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Again, for what feels like the third or fourth time, this is already happening all over the globe. this is weird logic. scams happen every minute of every day all over the globe, i do not advocate for more people to scam. >It's an open secret, for example, that the AI companies trained their models on pirated textbooks. yeah, and that was wrong. >You can't pay your rent with ethics. this is a sad sentence. | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >this is a sad sentence. I don't disagree, but I'm talking about the real world that we inhabit, not the fictional idealized world we wistfully discuss in classrooms. The world is a shitty place full of shitty people. Being an idealist is just asking to be taken advantage of. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >fictional idealized world we wistfully discuss in classrooms. you can live in the real world without stealing software from people and justifying it because they were born in the "wrong" country. i have done it my entire life. "two wrongs dont make a right" is a pretty simple rule to live by, even in the real world. perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also good for ones mental health. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | deaux 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | china also uses child labor, and are doing just fine. shall we adopt that practice as well? different in severity, but same logic. | | |
| ▲ | deaux 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >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. | | |
| ▲ | deaux 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Adherence to licenses is completely meaningless if it's a one-way street. The whole concept of them is based on reciprocality. Since there's zero chance a Russian court is going to hold up a Western entity's complaint about a Russian entity's violation of their license, reciprocality is dead. This is a very mainstream concept so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about it. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >This is a very mainstream concept so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about it. i am not worked up, but that is a good attempt at undermining my point by coming at me personally instead of my words. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | deaux 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
