> 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...

However, AGPL doesn't require retaining attributions other than copyright notices by default. Under section 7b, the copyright holder can specify which attributions to retain.

Under 7b, OnlyOffice specified that forks must "retain the original Product logo". I agree with others that this is not a legitimate way to request attribution, and therefore this could be removed from the license. See section 7:

>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.

Therefore, I think there is no obligation to attribute OnlyOffice, only to retain the original copyright notices.

----

Additionally, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that Euro-Office actually removed the logos from their fork. Can anybody find such a commit?

Is Euro-Office funded by the EU? I don't think the EU has anything to do with this project.

----

https://github.com/Euro-Office/:

> Euro-Office is an initiative of a group of European companies

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47590348

Points: 10

# Comments: 1

> But to our great regret, we discovered that they removed all references to our brand/attribute as required by our license.

Where does AGPL require preserving "references to our brand"?

From a contributor point-of-view: If I voluntarily contributed to OnlyOffice, I would be unhappy that the company sold my AGPL-licensed code and attempted to hide the fact. Granted, they probably require contributors to sign a CLA, so as to make this legal. And yes, it is also unclear if P7 was a single-time fork of OnlyOffice, or if it continually takes code from OnlyOffice.

From a random Russian person's point of view, it would be very unfair to learn that the (ostensibly Russian) software you have bought (because P7 appears to be solely commercial, not freemium, but correct me if I'm wrong) is in fact open-source and gratis in the West.

For example, a commit to a third-party (?) P7-Office-plugin repo is titled "Replace OnlyOffice with R7-Office and fix encoding (UTF-8 no BOM)" (emphasis mine). (https://github.com/r7-consult/plugin-grammalecte/commit/ca45...)

The R7-Office FreeBSD port contains files named "onlyoffice-docxf.xml" and "onlyoffice-oform.xml". (https://www.freshports.org/editors/linux-r7-office/)

A GhostBSD package contains files that contain Ascensio System SIA copyright notices. (https://pkg.ghostbsd.org/stable/FreeBSD:14:amd64/latest/All/... --- Zstandard-compressed tarball)

https://github.com/Euro-Office/core/commit/e452acebeb3433895...

On the one hand, the authors of AGPL certainly didn't intend the "Additional Terms" to be a means to restrict forking. On the other hand, Ascensio System SIA apparently wants to restrict forking, and flouting this is asking for legal trouble (especially since Euro-Office appears to be a major thing).