Nemeski@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 2 months agoOnlyOffice invokes AGPLv3, says Nextcloud must restore removed logos in Euro-Office forkwww.neowin.netexternal-linkmessage-square15linkfedilinkarrow-up1106arrow-down10
arrow-up1106arrow-down1external-linkOnlyOffice invokes AGPLv3, says Nextcloud must restore removed logos in Euro-Office forkwww.neowin.netNemeski@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square15linkfedilink
minus-squarechemical_cutthroat@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down13·2 months agoSure, I get the fork, and that’s the beauty of open source. However, attribution should be standard. You can’t just fork and claim it as your own. It’s still based on code someone else wrote.
minus-squareazuth@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up26·2 months agoAttribution is required by the (A)GPL and is standard in forks. What is not required is preserving branding and logos. For a good reason, those are often trademarks. Had they included them Only office would sue them for trademark violations. It’s a dishonest attempt to override the FOSS license.
minus-squareEk-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15·2 months agoFSS are the creators or AGPL3, aka. The liscence OnlyOffice is released under. FSS made a statement/blog-post to say the restrictions OnlyOffice added are illegitimate and not in accordance with AGPL3. OO isn’t just asking for attribution they are asking two things. You must keep our logo Nobody is allowed to use our logo Do you see the problem, it’s not just attribution
Sure, I get the fork, and that’s the beauty of open source. However, attribution should be standard. You can’t just fork and claim it as your own. It’s still based on code someone else wrote.
Attribution is required by the (A)GPL and is standard in forks. What is not required is preserving branding and logos.
For a good reason, those are often trademarks. Had they included them Only office would sue them for trademark violations.
It’s a dishonest attempt to override the FOSS license.
FSS are the creators or AGPL3, aka. The liscence OnlyOffice is released under.
FSS made a statement/blog-post to say the restrictions OnlyOffice added are illegitimate and not in accordance with AGPL3.
OO isn’t just asking for attribution they are asking two things.
Do you see the problem, it’s not just attribution