Does OnlyOffice even support open document formats? All they ever mention is Microsoft compatibility.
It does, as well as Microsoft Office: Wikipedia
Thanks, I couldn't find the info on their site, so I never tried their software, as I haven't used MS formats in ages. Maybe I'll take a look now. Although Libre Office works for me...
I think it'd be nice if people used latex, typst and markdown instead of docx and pptx (or open ones). Not sure about xlsx, maybe Matplotlib + SQL suit but they require programming knowledge.
So they're saying that the AGPL v3 additional terms for Only office include this:
How can you retain the original logo if you don't have the right to use their trademarks? (I'm assuming they have a trademark for the logo)
This feels like a sleazy attempt to find a loop hole in the AGPL language to restrict commercial use. Afaik, GPL licenses specifically allow commercial distribution, as not doing so would be a restriction on freedom.
If Only Office doesn't want people to do this, they could have very easily just chosen a different license from the beginning. I find it hard to see them as the good guy here.
It's technically possible. You'd have to keep the branding and logo but also say "Powered by ONLYOFFICE" to comply. You'd also have to release the source code under the same license.
This case is a good thing to happen, because the resulting jurisprudence will give us more certainity about the agpl and if the onlyoffice people lose, we will have the codebase available in a no bullshit repo from another group
How can you retain the original logo if you don’t have the right to use their trademarks?
I'm confused by that as well.
This feels like a sleazy attempt to find a loop hole in the AGPL language to restrict commercial use.
That cannot be the case; OnlyOffice has been working with Nextcloud for years to provide interoperability.
If Only Office doesn’t want people to do this, they could have very easily just chosen a different license from the beginning.
I don't believe that "restricting commercial use" is the problem. In this article OnlyOffice has apparently been having problems with Nextcloud pushing past their licensing boundaries and even soliciting OnlyOffice's customers directly.
Why not go for LibreOffice is my question.
Euro-Office primarily wants to have something like Google Docs, i.e. collaborative office that's available from the web browser. LibreOffice Online is not supported by LibreOffice (The Document Foundation).
AFAIK OnlyOffice is closer to Micro$lop Office in terms of UI design and would thus make for an easier transition for hundreds of clerks trained on that.
better compatibility with MS Office documents. I've had plenty of Word docs and Excel sheets breaking or fritzing out in Libre Office, whereas OnlyOffice opens them without issues
Because they hate GNU and free software. They is european lobbyist companies
Imagine being this ignorant. They chose to fork only office because it’s web based and AGPL.
The original only office team refuses to allow community contributions and tries to stop people from forking it with a stupid (against the terms and spirit of the AGPL) poison pill.
Eurooffice are the good people here.
Eurooffice are the good people here.
At first, it seemed to me that Euro-Office simply removed any mention of ONLYOFFICE and its authors because they didn't want to be associated with a Russian product (even though it’s based in Latvia). The developers wanted the origin of the product and its authors to be mentioned in the 'About' section and somewhere in the README like based on ONLYOFFICE. I think it would be polite of euro-office.
But as I understand it, the Reddit and Lemmy users see the problem in the fact that you must use someone else's logo, which you can't use.
The legal argument is a bit dubious and clearly in violation of the idea of the AGPL, but I guess this is something courts will have to settle.
and clearly in violation of the idea of the AGPL
Dunno how that could be since the idea of requiring attribution is specifically called out in Section 7, item B.
I guess this is something courts will have to settle.
Almost certainly true.
idea of requiring attribution is specifically called out in Section 7, item B.
But requiring that the logo be retained is not.
Now, it's not entirely clear what they even are asking for. If the ask is that the OnlyOffice logo be included in a 'credits' page (which is perhaps a reasonable interpretation of "you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program") then it is much less problematic, although perhaps still beyond requiring attribution, than if they are trying to demand that, say, the favicon of the webapp must not be changed (especially if their intent is also to say that you can't distribute the program if you don't change the favicon because it would be a trademark violation).
Now of course, if they have written all of OnlyOffice in house, and not had any external contributors or used any external copyleft code, then they can re-license OnlyOffice on whatever terms. If they were bound to the licence by including other people's AGPL contributions, then they have to follow the licence themselves, and cannot add arbitrary additional restrictions.
note that relicensing would practically only apply to the code following a relicense, since the previous license means you had released contributions under the previous license on publish
Attribution isn't the problem. They try to circumvent the AGPL by making their trademarked logo part of the attribution, thus basically forbidding any of the rights people normally have under the AGPL.
I thought Europe already had case law surrounding this while the US have never taken it as far as courts and paid an undisclosed sum.
In Europe I'm now aware of any common law or precedence law approaches so even if there'd be a case like you described (which I would be interested in!) it wouldn't have binding qualities for the bullshit that onlyoffice is pulling off.
Dipshits.
as a person with an american background who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about, IIRC if there's a long series of previous decisions it would still be very persuasive under civil law (jurisprudence constante). I cannot find any similar decisions either, though.
Oh yeahz you're right from what I know! Reference cases are used, at least in Germany, all the time, especially looking at the closing argument of the judgment itself (according to that one judge podcast I listen to which makes me an internet expert, doesn't it?).
Good point!
wait which podcast is that that sounds interesting
"Sag Mal Du als Richterin", but it's locked away behind the audible paywall sadly.
What case are you referring to?
A bunch of German ones.
From a quick glance, none of these examples are similar to the OnlyOffice claim.
Not a legal argument but what is the possibility of modifying and redistributing the software worth of the entire branding (!), etc. have to be kept intact. Doesn’t that impose limits on modifications in the first place? Doesn’t feel much like the idea of a viral copyleft license. Also, if the first thing after a prominent fork is starting a legal fight over subtleties in the license with the goal of preserving one’s brand, I’m not so sure why the software was distributed with an AGPL in the first place. The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.
The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.
Likely because we don't know what the agreement is between OO and NC. They obviously have one because they've been partners for nearly a decade.
I assume they hope that their added license condition of an 'obligation to retain the original product logo' is a 'reasonable...author attribution' (AGPL section 7b). Hmm.
They invite the FSF to judge:
If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative. However, if the decision goes against us, we are ready to consider other options.
lots of onlyoffice drama lately, no?
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
