RE: https://fosstodon.org/@ONLYOFFICE/116317711474615441
So, #onlyoffice think they found a legal loophole in #AGPLv3 by mandating „the obligation to retain the original product logo“ while at the same time denying any rights to use said (trademarked) logo 🤡
#IANAL but I doubt any judge will agree to this interpretation of „requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions“ (section 7b), but hey, feel free to bring this to court, good luck! 😂
@skittles well, at least your claim about denying the use of the logo is wrong. The logo can be used as part of onlyoffice, 7e only denies the use outside of onlyoffice, e.g. IONOS is not allowed to use the onlyoffice brand to advertise their office 365 products. They confirmed that this is also their understanding https://x.com/only_office/status/2038631015191543892
It might still be questionable use of AGPL, but compliance with what they want would be easy: just keep the original logo in the topleft corner.
@fred6279 In brief: under Section 7(b) the logo should remain within the software interface in its original form (where present), while under Section 7(e) it should not be used outside the product or in any manner suggesting association with the copyright holder or as part of another brand
@pixelschubsi If that’s the case they might want to clarify their license, because it literally includes „the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks“, and they also might want to add that information on their blog instead of posting it on a fascist platform.
Anyway, doesn’t change the fact: you can’t fork OO, because the moment you rename the project it’s not OO anymore and puff goes your right to use their logo.
@skittles
> doesn’t change the fact: you can’t fork OO
I think that's effectively what they intended to say, yes. Take the code, do improvements, adjust for your setup, all of this is fine and allowed. But don't create a competing product from it.
It might not be the spirit of free software, but it's a fair approach to release your source code.
@skittles
Now if someone goes and ignores their wish to not create a competing product from it, even if they will legally succeed, IMO, they're morally on the wrong side, because they ignored the original authors intention.
The nationalist tendencies of the Euro-Office project do fit the picture though.
@pixelschubsi Choosing an open source software license and then trying to weasel out of it is not a „fair approach“, neither is it „morally wrong“ to not adhere to malicious terms, especially not since the AGPLv3 explicitly allows this.
The FSF is also very clear on this https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gpl-compliant-legal-notices-author-attributions
@skittles The FSF is also very clear that advertising clauses in licenses do not make them non-free licenses. The FSF actually lists Apache 1 and OpenSSL License as "GPL-incompatible free software licenses" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.en#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
If you want so, OnlyOffice wanted some sort of attribution in their free software product. It may well be that AGPLv3 does not fit their desire. That doesn't make their wish/terms "malicious".
@skittles When I cross a red traffic light at a street without any cars, bikes or other humans nearby, I am well aware that I did not comply with the legal text. But I know that the intention of the creators of such legal text wasn't to keep me waiting at a red traffic light when there's absolutely noone around, they wanted to prevent accidents and injuries.
Of course you can be that guy that keeps waiting at the traffic light in such situation. I won't. 🤷
@skittles i think there's actually precedent, at least in the united states: the sega genesis used to protect their console against unlicensed games by requiring each game to hold a piece of text saying "SEGA" in the ROM data header at a specific spot, it was called the "TradeMark Security System" or TMSS
the idea was that unlicensed games would be violating sega's trademark if they put "SEGA" in the ROM without sega's permission
the court ruled that others using a trademark that was literally required for a product to function can't be a violation
@rnd Neither party is from the US, jurisdiction would most likely be in Germany (the law here doesn’t know precedence), and it’s also a very different case, so I don’t think this will be relevant here. (But kudos to the US court for shutting this down).
Again, IANAL, but unless the court would rule in favour for OO, it would probably find that it’s either a direct violation of AGPLv3 section 7b (i.e. „not reasonable“) or that it’s abusing the intent of AGPLv3 and declare it moot.
@rnd @skittles People bring in this trademark matter, without there being any hint that trademarks play a role here.
What happened is that Euro-Office removed large parts of the attribution to OnlyOffice, presumably to create a competing product, not because of trademark issues. This is what OnlyOffice complains about.
@rnd @skittles
Now the question that needs to be discussed is not trademark matters, but rather how far the AGPL 7b restrictions can go in requiring attributions.
Is mentioning the original authors somewhere in the legal small print sufficient for the attribution requirements if the original author explicitly claims that attribution should remain significant in the user interface?
Volt4ire
skittles
pixelschubsi
/dev/urandom
Menel 
ONLYOFFICE
Uwe Caspari