33
Euro-Office: European industry initiative launches office suite
(nextcloud.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
33 points (94.6% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
22186 readers
259 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The legal battle between euro office and onlyoffice is interesting. I actually hope it goes to european courts. I suspect onlyoffice will win this one, but then everyone will abandon their code.
Simultaneously TDF and collabora are having a spat.
Interesting things afoot in the FOSS hosted office ecosystem. Prediction: a third option emerges -- clean room rewrite (maybe this is a good thing).
I'm sceptical tbh, their interpretation of the AGPL seems questionable. The specific wording in the AGPL they're relying on for their logo preservation term is:
IMO a logo isn't attribution, and even if it was there's no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don't allow you to use it.
The ones the register talked to seem to agree with you
https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/02/eurooffice_forks_onlyoffice/
I don't think OnlyOffice will win in court.
AGPL3 prevents you from adding restrictions.
In clause 7 3(b) they add a clause that you must keep their Logo etc. In the UI
The almost immediately in a follow up clause restrict anyone from using their Logo etc.
With those clauses, you can't fork the repo. Which adds a restriction, which is against AGPL3
The problem with this is that OnlyOffice owns the copyright and used attribution agreements from any contributions. Meaning, as owners of the copyright, they are allowed to set the license. So if they applied the AGPL wrong, they aren't violating anyone else's copyright. If OnlyOffice has used someone else's AGPL code and then added these impossible restrictions, then I would agree.
They took AGPL3 and added a clause to it under a section where you're allowed to add clauses.
However in AGPL3 it says you're not allowed to add restrictions.
So in their own liscence it says they are not allowed to add restrictions beyond a certain scope.
And then they break that rule.
So I'd say their extra clause, according to they liscence they released, is invalid