- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So the additional conditions include:
- the obligation to retain the original product logo (Section 7(b));
- the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks (Section 7(e)).
Those sound contradictory to me. You have to retain the original branding, but presumably that branding has been trademarked by OnlyOffice. Sounds like this makes it impossible to create and distribute a fork without their permission. If you can’t do that OnlyOffice is only source available, not truly open source.
Very sneaky, but at least now they’ve shown their true colours. Likely this is a deliberate poison pill clause to prevent forks from competing while still appearing to be FOSS.
Any organisations that value FOSS and who are using OnlyOffice should be informed of the licensing gotcha so they can re-evaluate if the software meets their criteria.

