FSF to OnlyOffice: You Can't Use the GNU (A)GPL to Take Software Freedom Away (fsf.org)
(Saturday April 18, 2026 @11:34AM (EditorDavid)
from the join-us-now dept.)
- Reference: 0181743924
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/04/18/0417208/fsf-to-onlyoffice-you-cant-use-the-gnu-agpl-to-take-software-freedom-away
- Source link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/agpl-is-not-a-tool-for-taking-freedom-away
Nextcloud joined a project to create a sovereign replacement for Microsoft Office called "Euro-Office". But after that project forked OnlyOffice, OnlyOffice [1]suspended its partnership with Nextcloud . "They removed all references to our brand/attribute as required by our license," [2]argued OnlyOffice CEO Lev Bannov on March 30th. ("The core issue here isn't just about what the AGPL license states, but about the additional provisions we, as the authors, have included... If the Euro-Office team believes our approach conflicts with the AGPLv3 license, we invite them to submit an official request to FSF for review.")
But this week [3]the FSF responded (as "the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses"), criticizing OnlyOffice's "attempt to impose an additional restriction on the AGPLv3" and calling it "inconsistent with the freedoms granted by the license," in a blog post from FSF licensing/compliance manager Krzysztof Siewicz:
> It is possible to modify the (A)GPLv3 with additional terms, but only by adhering to the terms of the license... The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3. It states, "[i]f the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term"...
>
> We urge OnlyOffice to clarify the situation by making it unambiguous that OnlyOffice is licensed under the AGPLv3, and that users who already received copies of the software are allowed to remove any further restrictions. Additionally, if they intend to continue to use the AGPLv3 for future releases, they should state clearly that the program is licensed under the AGPLv3 and make sure they remove any further restrictions from their program documentation and source code. Confusing users by attaching further restrictions to any of the FSF's family of GNU General Public Licenses is not in line with free software.
"If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative," OnlyOffice's CEO had written in March. "However, if the decision goes against us, [4]we are ready to consider other options ."
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/04/01/1516246/onlyoffice-suspends-nextcloud-partnership-for-forking-its-project-without-approval
[2] https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/interview-with-lev-bannov-ceo-at-onlyoffice-on-the-euro-office-situation
[3] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/agpl-is-not-a-tool-for-taking-freedom-away
[4] https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/interview-with-lev-bannov-ceo-at-onlyoffice-on-the-euro-office-situation
But this week [3]the FSF responded (as "the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses"), criticizing OnlyOffice's "attempt to impose an additional restriction on the AGPLv3" and calling it "inconsistent with the freedoms granted by the license," in a blog post from FSF licensing/compliance manager Krzysztof Siewicz:
> It is possible to modify the (A)GPLv3 with additional terms, but only by adhering to the terms of the license... The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3. It states, "[i]f the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term"...
>
> We urge OnlyOffice to clarify the situation by making it unambiguous that OnlyOffice is licensed under the AGPLv3, and that users who already received copies of the software are allowed to remove any further restrictions. Additionally, if they intend to continue to use the AGPLv3 for future releases, they should state clearly that the program is licensed under the AGPLv3 and make sure they remove any further restrictions from their program documentation and source code. Confusing users by attaching further restrictions to any of the FSF's family of GNU General Public Licenses is not in line with free software.
"If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative," OnlyOffice's CEO had written in March. "However, if the decision goes against us, [4]we are ready to consider other options ."
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/04/01/1516246/onlyoffice-suspends-nextcloud-partnership-for-forking-its-project-without-approval
[2] https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/interview-with-lev-bannov-ceo-at-onlyoffice-on-the-euro-office-situation
[3] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/agpl-is-not-a-tool-for-taking-freedom-away
[4] https://www.onlyoffice.com/blog/2026/03/interview-with-lev-bannov-ceo-at-onlyoffice-on-the-euro-office-situation
This is like (Score:3)
having a tantrum and threatening to pick up your bat and ball and go home. Except there are other bats and balls already laying around. Identical ones even. This seems like a completely self-destroying empty threat. If OnlyOffice goes closed source it doesn't matter, there is already a fork for the wider community to continue working on even in a capacity that may be funded by Nextcloud or similar organisations.