this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
66 points (97.1% liked)

Opensource

5846 readers
195 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
pylapp@programming.dev
66
ONLYOFFICE flags license violations in “Euro-Office” project (www.onlyoffice.com)
submitted 15 hours ago by kiri@ani.social to c/opensource@programming.dev
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

To build an independent office suite, Euro‑Office’s IT consortium opted to base it on the existing open‑source solution OnlyOffice, which is released under the AGPL‑v3

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] entwine@programming.dev 25 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

So they're saying that the AGPL v3 additional terms for Only office include this:

  • the obligation to retain the original product logo
  • the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks

How can you retain the original logo if you don't have the right to use their trademarks? (I'm assuming they have a trademark for the logo)

This feels like a sleazy attempt to find a loop hole in the AGPL language to restrict commercial use. Afaik, GPL licenses specifically allow commercial distribution, as not doing so would be a restriction on freedom.

If Only Office doesn't want people to do this, they could have very easily just chosen a different license from the beginning. I find it hard to see them as the good guy here.

[–] morto@piefed.social 9 points 9 hours ago

This case is a good thing to happen, because the resulting jurisprudence will give us more certainity about the agpl and if the onlyoffice people lose, we will have the codebase available in a no bullshit repo from another group

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 12 hours ago

How can you retain the original logo if you don’t have the right to use their trademarks?

I'm confused by that as well.

This feels like a sleazy attempt to find a loop hole in the AGPL language to restrict commercial use.

That cannot be the case; OnlyOffice has been working with Nextcloud for years to provide interoperability.

If Only Office doesn’t want people to do this, they could have very easily just chosen a different license from the beginning.

I don't believe that "restricting commercial use" is the problem. In this article OnlyOffice has apparently been having problems with Nextcloud pushing past their licensing boundaries and even soliciting OnlyOffice's customers directly.