Instead of continuing the fight over branding, OnlyOffice has proposed what it calls a “constructive” path forward. The letter demands that Euro-Office change its UI and source code.
I love this.
This is the problem with everyone going opensource to get away from big tech. No one wants to put in the work to help open source projects, and can’t even be fucked to attribute the original code. It’s all take, take, take, and the shareholders love it because they only thing they heard was “free.”
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.
It’s pretty funny on its face (“If you want to use a different logo, then use different code too”), but I have the feeling that this schism is just going to make open-source office projects worse in general.
I agree with the FSF; I’m just a little worried Onlyoffice will seek some vindictive retaliation. I don’t know what that’ll look like, but I certainly wouldn’t have predicted this response from them either.
I love this.
This is the problem with everyone going opensource to get away from big tech. No one wants to put in the work to help open source projects, and can’t even be fucked to attribute the original code. It’s all take, take, take, and the shareholders love it because they only thing they heard was “free.”
Nextcloud tried to work with OnlyOffice, but they refused and don’t look at any PR’s
So Nextcloud forked it and created EuroOffice. Now OnlyOffice is pissed
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
It’s pretty funny on its face (“If you want to use a different logo, then use different code too”), but I have the feeling that this schism is just going to make open-source office projects worse in general.
FSF has already called out OnlyOffice (just without naming them) and says GPL doesn’t allow it.
Additionally you’re not allowed to claim you’re using GPL if you add impermissible additions to the license
I agree with the FSF; I’m just a little worried Onlyoffice will seek some vindictive retaliation. I don’t know what that’ll look like, but I certainly wouldn’t have predicted this response from them either.
Then you call FSF as an expert witness and watch them tear them apart
That’s not what this is at all.
Onlyoffice is Russian