← Back to context

Comment by MadVikingGod

5 days ago

I was wondering about how they came to the conclusion that they violated the copyright, so I went to check if they did the AGPL[1] with some extra clauses in it. Turns out they didn't, but they did change[2] it[3] in an interesting way: All the https urls in the GNU version are http urls.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt

[2]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/core/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

[3]: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/onlyoffice-nextcloud/blob/mast...

11 comments

MadVikingGod

Reply
bundie  5 days ago

For the record, this is the argument ONLYOFFICE's lawyer is making:

- ONLYOFFICE is under AGPLv3 since 2016.

- AGPLv3 requires source disclosure, preserving the license, and keeping copyright notices.

- Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use.

- You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.

- Ignoring these conditions is a license breach and copyright infringement.

  • cwillu  5 days ago

    > You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.

    Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”

    • kube-system  5 days ago

      That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission.

      But, same result, because it also says:

      > 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.

      A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.

      3 replies →

  • kube-system  5 days ago

    Their lawyer is right about everything except:

    > - Section 7 lets ONLYOFFICE add conditions: keep the logo and no trademark use.

    Section 7 allows you to add permissions, but it prohibits any restrictions beyond the options listed in section 7.

    • X-Ryl669  5 days ago

      That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.

      1 reply →