Post #873742

2026-03-30 19:32 UTC

OnlyOffice is getting upset that they&#39;ve been forked, after they attempted to set sketchy license additions to prevent forks: https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/onlyoffice-flags-license-violations-in-euro-office-project-by-nextcloud-and-ionos I explain their questionable license, including a conversation I had with their legal manager, on isitreallyfoss: https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/onlyoffice/ I hope Euro-Office succeeds to provide a FOSS-friendly alternative, will need a lot of effort though to continue a project like that, especially if OnlyOffice play nasty.

Replies (8)

@Gina@fosstodon.org 2026-03-30 19:42

@danb@fosstodon.org I still don't understand why they went with OnlyOffice and not Collabora.

Open ##1121894
@64bithero@mstdn.games 2026-03-30 19:46

@danb I use to like their product line to :(

Open ##1306435
@foxhkron@cybre.club 2026-03-30 19:50

@danb@fosstodon.org Not sure why, but the way they phrased the announcement at OnlyOffice reeks of LLM generated text

Open ##1306436
@daniel@masto.doserver.top 2026-03-30 20:02

@danb @Gina I read both of those and my conclusions was that's a rubbish "open source" license but I guess that technically Euro Office is in the wrong. Am I missing something?

Open ##1306438
@miklo@fosstodon.org 2026-03-30 20:28

@danb But they're right that, according to Section 7 of AGPLv3, the copyright holder is expressly entitled to impose additional conditions. So the “Euro-Office” project might be forced not to remove their logo. But I don't think that's an issue. Usually, FOSS projects have the opposite requirements—that forks must not use the original project's trademarked branding.

Open ##1306440
@berniethewordsmith@neopaquita.es 2026-03-30 22:02

@danb Affero is already a license with some restrictions. The additional clauses mentioned smell a bit bad to be honest. Also, sounds like somebody got really mad that somebody else came up with a really good name for their application

Open ##1306442
@stragu@mastodon.indie.host 2026-03-31 03:23

@danb Am I reading it right, that they (1) force you to show their logo on any derivative, while (2) refusing you the right to use their logo?

Open ##1306443
@bigbelgianbopper@mastodon-belgium.be 2026-03-31 05:20

@danb and this is why sadly a lot of companies just pay for commercial closed software. You don’t want to get stuck is a legislative swamp.

Open ##1306449