>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 [-]

▲

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.