My understanding is that the AGLP license of OnlyOffice doesn’t permit the licensor to just arbitrarily add additional attribution conditions. So while OnlyOffice is referencing those conditions, the argument is that these were never valid or enforceable to begin with.
The argument from Euro-office is that OnlyOffice combination of
Section 7 § 3(b): Mandating the retention of the OnlyOffice logo and branding in the user interface.
and
Section 7 § 3(e): Denying rights to use OnlyOffice trademarks.
Constitutes “further restrictions” that violate Section 10 of the AGPLv3, which prohibits imposing additional restrictions on top of the license.
These don’t fall under section 10 though - 7A through F detail the terms that are explicitly exempt from the restriction on adding additional terms.
Other people have argued that these are contradictory - but you don’t need trademark rights to display a logo if the purpose of the display is to directly refer to the trademarked material. They are likely hoping for something along the lines of “powered by <onlyoffice logo>”. For example, Coca Cola logos and trademarks have appeared in TONS of Pepsi marketing materials, because those trademarks were used to directly refer to the coca cola brand, which is fair use.
I think what it comes down to is whether the courts see “displaying the logo” as “reasonable” attribution or not.
My understanding is that the AGLP license of OnlyOffice doesn’t permit the licensor to just arbitrarily add additional attribution conditions. So while OnlyOffice is referencing those conditions, the argument is that these were never valid or enforceable to begin with.
7b of the AGPL specifically allows additional terms to be added to the license as it pertains to preserving attribution or legal notices.
The argument from Euro-office is that OnlyOffice combination of
Section 7 § 3(b): Mandating the retention of the OnlyOffice logo and branding in the user interface.
and
Section 7 § 3(e): Denying rights to use OnlyOffice trademarks.
Constitutes “further restrictions” that violate Section 10 of the AGPLv3, which prohibits imposing additional restrictions on top of the license.
I honestly think euro-office has a leg to stand on there, I’m curious to see what happens if it goes to court.
https://codeberg.org/danb/isitreallyfoss/issues/266
https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/onlyoffice/
These don’t fall under section 10 though - 7A through F detail the terms that are explicitly exempt from the restriction on adding additional terms.
Other people have argued that these are contradictory - but you don’t need trademark rights to display a logo if the purpose of the display is to directly refer to the trademarked material. They are likely hoping for something along the lines of “powered by <onlyoffice logo>”. For example, Coca Cola logos and trademarks have appeared in TONS of Pepsi marketing materials, because those trademarks were used to directly refer to the coca cola brand, which is fair use.
I think what it comes down to is whether the courts see “displaying the logo” as “reasonable” attribution or not.
Insightful, and I too think your ending remark is where it lands after reading the original agpl paragraphs.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt
Sidenote; a second fork called euro_office has appeared on codeberg to make it even more confusing.
https://codeberg.org/euro_Office