Hasn't OnlyOffice been accused of license shenanigans?
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
98 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
83304 readers
3461 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, those are the further terms
Onlyoffice's unnamed lawyer, vs the author of AGPL and the FSF: I know whose opinion I'll put more stock in.
Forks are a central part of the open-source ecosystem and are expressly intended to enable further development, adaptation, and also alternative governance models.
Yes, but the immovability of *GPL licenses is what protects the projects from exploitation. OO put an addition to that license that the name is part of the copyrighted thing. So if for whatever reason the work done by NC is not being merged into upstream, or is not being fast enough, there should be two OO. One from OO and a fork from NC. If the code-bases drift apart, well, now we have two incompatible OnlyOffices. In that case those additions might have been a dumb idea. But I think we can't afford to have exceptions from enforceability of the license
This is the nightmare scenario for companies doing open source software. Regardless of how OnlyOffice behaves and their russian ties - other companies forking the whole codebase, removing the name and selling it is something that will prevent others from going the FOSS route
Easy fix: Don't fork OnlyOffice. Start your own office suite and just happen to port over some parts of the code base that do not include any logos. Same, same but different.
Or just fork Libreoffice online...
They already explained why they didn't.
And their argument was quite shallow
Or LLM cleanroom copy it, like the internet did when claude code source was leaked into other languages like rust