To build an independent office suite, Euro‑Office’s IT consortium opted to base it on the existing open‑source solution OnlyOffice, which is released under the AGPL‑v3

  • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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