Why not go for LibreOffice is my question.
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!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because they hate GNU and free software. They is european lobbyist companies
better compatibility with MS Office documents. I've had plenty of Word docs and Excel sheets breaking or fritzing out in Libre Office, whereas OnlyOffice opens them without issues
AFAIK OnlyOffice is closer to Micro$lop Office in terms of UI design and would thus make for an easier transition for hundreds of clerks trained on that.
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.
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
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.
The legal argument is a bit dubious and clearly in violation of the idea of the AGPL, but I guess this is something courts will have to settle.
and clearly in violation of the idea of the AGPL
Dunno how that could be since the idea of requiring attribution is specifically called out in Section 7, item B.
I guess this is something courts will have to settle.
Almost certainly true.
Attribution isn't the problem. They try to circumvent the AGPL by making their trademarked logo part of the attribution, thus basically forbidding any of the rights people normally have under the AGPL.
I thought Europe already had case law surrounding this while the US have never taken it as far as courts and paid an undisclosed sum.
In Europe I'm now aware of any common law or precedence law approaches so even if there'd be a case like you described (which I would be interested in!) it wouldn't have binding qualities for the bullshit that onlyoffice is pulling off.
Dipshits.
What case are you referring to?
A bunch of German ones.
From a quick glance, none of these examples are similar to the OnlyOffice claim.
Not a legal argument but what is the possibility of modifying and redistributing the software worth of the entire branding (!), etc. have to be kept intact. Doesn’t that impose limits on modifications in the first place? Doesn’t feel much like the idea of a viral copyleft license. Also, if the first thing after a prominent fork is starting a legal fight over subtleties in the license with the goal of preserving one’s brand, I’m not so sure why the software was distributed with an AGPL in the first place. The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.
The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.
Likely because we don't know what the agreement is between OO and NC. They obviously have one because they've been partners for nearly a decade.
I assume they hope that their added license condition of an 'obligation to retain the original product logo' is a 'reasonable...author attribution' (AGPL section 7b). Hmm.
They invite the FSF to judge:
If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative. However, if the decision goes against us, we are ready to consider other options.
lots of onlyoffice drama lately, no?