Comment by X-Ryl669
5 days ago
I think you're claiming wrong stuff here. AGPLv3 section 7 paragraph b) expressively authorize the author to require an attribution in the derived work or copy. What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution, so they actually mooted their own right to use the code under that license. There's nothing related to trademark or branding violation here. If OnlyOffice attacked Nextcloud for using their TM or brand for respecting the license, they would be debunked at a trial (if it even reach a trial), since they expressively allowed the use of the attribution in distributing their work with this license. Note: This license doesn't give you the right to use the branding of OnlyOffice on a derived product and claim it's yours or you're acting as them, that's a complete different usage case here.
The license says:
> you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program
I understand "retain" in the way that you have to display the logo anywhere where the original OnlyOffice displays it. So I think you actually have to "use the branding of OnlyOffice".
----
> What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution
Did they? If including the logo anywhere counts as attribution, I don't think they did. The logo is still present in several places:
https://github.com/Euro-Office/core/blob/main/DesktopEditor/...
https://github.com/Euro-Office/desktop-apps/blob/main/win-li...
https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/blob/main/branding/inf...
They changed it here:
https://github.com/Euro-Office/server/blob/main/branding/inf...
AGPL allows for compatibility with a requirement for attribution but it doesn’t not allow (and explicitly says people can ignore) any further requirements beyond that.
A copyright attribution is e.g: “Copyright 2026 kube-system”. Attribution does not mean the same thing as “logo” or “branding”
The OnlyOffice license is ultimately a terrible crayon license. Those two requirements they wrote in are self contradictory… in consecutive sentences even. I kind of doubt that any court is gonna take that super seriously. It seems to be intentionally misleading or malicious, which is frowned upon.
OnlyOffice didn't distribute under a pure AGPLv3 license. They made modifications to it.
On line 655 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/blob/master/LIC...
> Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks.
And on line 17 here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors/blob/master/LIC...
> Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software.
IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.
They’re completely wrong about Section 7 § 3(b).
They’re mistakenly conflating “attribution” with “branding” or “trademark”. They’re different things. In the context of a copyright license, attribution is something like “// Copyright 2012 <whoever> Corporation” that you might see in a source file.
This use doesn’t violate trademark because you aren’t pretending to be them, you are attributing them as the source. Just like I can say “the Big Mac is a sandwich at McDonalds” and my comment is completely legal.
Even if “attribution” didn’t already mean something different — this reading of the AGPL is laughably stupid — first of all, you can’t compel someone to break the law in a contract anyway... and second, that’s an illogical interpretation of that section. Why would it be intentionally self contradictory? Clearly that isn’t right.
Requiring specific branding is not provided for in 7 § 3(b) and it is specifically forbidden by the the sentences that immediately follow:
> 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.
What they should do is make sure they keep all attribution in source files and tell them to pound sand about their bogus branding claims.
You're right, the branding claim here is BS but attribution requirements are legit. I only took a cursory glance at their repo, but I don't see any copyright notices for OnlyOffice in EuroOffice. There should be.