Euro-Office, ONLYOFFICE, and their licensing dispute
Published
I'm fairly passionate about European software sovereignty, so I was fairly excited when on March 27, there was news of a new initiative, "Euro-Office", to develop an Office suite under stewardship of big European players, spearheaded by Nextcloud & IONOS. They are forking ONLYOFFICE, an AGPL application, so from day one it is clear that this could not be turned proprietary later on – sounds like a great start!
Forking always comes with a few questions attached: why would they not start working from the LibreOffice or Collabora codebase? LibreOffice is already developed by The Document Foundation, based in Germany, after all. Why fork at all and not contribute to an existing codebase? There are a few reasons that aren't my focus here, but in short, according to Heise's reporting (above) and Euro-Office themselves on Github:
- "Libre Office is 35 years old and no longer the most innovative and fluid"; "You can also notice that in the browser."
- "Contributing is impossible or greatly discouraged. ONLYOFFICE typically does not review or accept pull requests. Build instructions are unreliable, outdated or just plain broken."
- "ONLYOFFICE is a Russian company (despite many attempts to hide this), and nearly all developers reside in Russia. Open Source is a global effort, but current political situation makes collaboration hard and trust difficult to earn."
Whether you agree or disagree with these reasons, a fork now exists – which brings us to the controversy.
Before we go on, I have to add that i am an enthusiast but not a lawyer. This is my interpretation of the situation, and I know that I have my biases towards the more open interpretation, i.e. the one that Euro-Office shares. Nevertheless, this is my honest opinion based on available statements and reporting at the time of writing.
ONLYOFFICE's license
ONLYOFFICE is licensed under AGPLv3, but they added some extra terms to it, as seen in their LICENSE file, as well as the legal headers of ONLYOFFICE's source code:
Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks.
The relevant parts of the referenced AGPLv3 section 7 are these:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
- […]
- b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
- […]
- e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
- […]
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If 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.
In turn, the relevant part of section 10 reads:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. […]
In other words, ONLYOFFICE says that they don't grant any rights for use of their trademarks – uncontroversially possible due to section 7(e) – and require their logo to be used for attribution – supposedly, this is covered by section 7(b). If this is the case, these terms together mean that any other party distributing code covered by their license either infringes on ONLYOFFICE's copyright or trademarks.
Understandably, these additional terms have been controversial for a while. For example, Dan Brown (no, not that Dan Brown) on his blog writes about "Common Misconceptions of the AGPL" (2024-10-02):
Section 7 does allow additional terms to be used but it specifically lists what kind of terms can be added. None of which fits OnlyOffice's requirement to not remove logos. This may be the closest option:
[quoting section 7(b)]
But this can be done outside of specific logos. Preventing certain modification (logo removal) goes far beyond that and from what I understand would go against the rights of the license, the open source definition and the free software defintion.
[…]
To be clear, I'm not against attribution, that's an important & core part of the AGPLv3 like many other open source licenses, but I'm against misrepresenting the license to prevent certain modification that seem to be in the authors benefit.
Dan Brown also runs the site "is it really FOSS?" and followed up on 2025-06-10, contacting ONLYOFFICE to get a statement from them. I'll leave reading the email exchange and site's entry on ONLYOFFICE to you, but apart from what was already stated, it contained interesting details like this:
Our requirement to preserve the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface (based on Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPLv3) applies to any distribution of the software.
And the trademark disclaimer (based on Section 7 § 3(e)) is a standard provision included to protect against misuse of our trademarks outside the scope defined in the license. While you are required to preserve the logo as part of the interface when distributing the software, you are not granted any additional rights to use the logo or trademarks for unrelated purposes such as branding, marketing, or creating derivative works outside the scope of the AGPLv3 license.
(Emphasis mine.) Note that this phrasing is subtly different from the license header: instead of "we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law", this talks about additional rights. This is similar to phrasing in recent tweets, e.g. here:
under Section 7(e) [the logo] should not be used outside the product or in any manner suggesting association with the copyright holder or as part of another brand
This could be viewed as meaning that ONLYOFFICE means to grant a limited right to use their trademark to fulfill their license requirements – but this can only be inferred: the AGPL does not include any such permission, and no license text or communication makes it explicit either. ONLYOFFICE consistently speaks of obligations to use their logo, restrictings for using their trademark, but never a grant of rights to use their logo for attribution purposes.
Enter Euro-Office
Before this background, the Euro-Office project was started as a fork of ONLYOFFICE, and taking the stance that AGPLv3 section 7(b) does not cover a requirement to display branding, on March 27, they removed the sections in relevant source file headers:
The commit message gives more insight into Euro-Office's legal position:
Logo retention requirement (Section 7(b)):
Section 7(b) permits requiring preservation of "legal notices or author attributions". A product logo is a trademark/brand element, not a legal notice or author attribution. It therefore exceeds the scope of 7(b), qualifies as a "further restriction" under Section 10, and may be removed.Trademark disclaimer (Section 7(e)):
Purely declaratory — the AGPLv3 does not grant trademark rights in any case. The disclaimer creates no affirmative obligation on the licensee and removing it changes no rights or obligations. There is no legal basis requiring its preservation.Contact address:
The postal address of Ascensio System SIA is informational only. No provision of the AGPLv3 requires downstream recipients to preserve the original licensor's contact details.
The arguments regarding section 7(b) are as expected: a logo is not attribution, therefore this term is a further restriction and can be removed. Regarding the trademark notice, Euro-Office argues that this term is basically redundant – although this term seems to actually fit the definitions of section 7(e), so maybe this removal is actually on shakier ground, based on a reading of the AGPL.
The next step was logical: naturally, ONLYOFFICE disavowed this interpretation and demanded Euro-Office revert these changes or be in violation of their copyright. So far, their actions seem to include issuing a "formal notice" to Nextcloud & IONOS (The timeline is too short to expect further legal action to have taken place) and public announcements:
Pursuant to Section 7 of AGPLv3, the copyright holder is expressly entitled to impose additional conditions. In the case of ONLYOFFICE, such conditions include, in particular:
- 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)).
[…]
Any argument that a modified or derivative version of the software may be distributed under a “pure” AGPLv3 license, excluding the additional conditions imposed pursuant to Section 7, is legally unfounded.
[…]
In other words, AGPLv3 does not permit selective application: a recipient either accepts AGPLv3 in its entirety, including all additional conditions, or acquires no rights to use the software.
[…]
The "Euro-Office" initiative represents an evident and material violation of ONLYOFFICE licensing terms and of established principles of international intellectual property law. We require full and immediate compliance with all applicable licensing conditions, including — but not limited to — the preservation of ONLYOFFICE branding, logo, and all required attribution elements as defined in our licensing terms.
(Original emphasis removed.) A further statement by ONLYOFFICE's CEO Lev Bannov says, in parts:
The core issue here isn't just about what the AGPL license states, but about the additional provisions we, as the authors, have included. This is a critical distinction, even if some may argue otherwise. We firmly assert that the Euro-Office project is currently infringing on our copyright in a deliberate and unacceptable manner.
If the Euro-Office team believes our approach conflicts with the AGPLv3 license, we invite them to submit an official request to FSF (Free Software Foundation) for review. Let the respected open-source community evaluate the situation and provide a decision. If FSF determines that our license and project align with AGPLv3, we will continue as an open-source initiative. However, if the decision goes against us, we are ready to consider other options.
(Original emphasis removed.) All these arguments are basically straight forward and uncontroversial: usage of the copyrighted material is conditioned on fulfilling the terms of the AGPL and the provisions added to it. Since Euro-office is not fulfilling the conditions in full, they can't claim any rights the AGPL would otherwise give them; there is no going halfway. However, this all hinges on one premise: that section 7(b) covers the logo retention provision.
The Free Software Foundation as an arbiter?
As seen above, ONLYOFFICE has invited Euro-Office to seek an evaluation of the situation by the FSF. As Heise reports, Nextcloud is indeed already aware of the Free Software Foundation's position on this. A blog post published 2026-01-27 outlines the FSF's point of view. (This is only speculation, but the timeline would fit with that post being a result of Nextcloud inquiring in preparation for launching the Euro-Office project.)
The post is written in reference to the GPL, but the relevant AGPL sections are identical. In parts, the statement reads:
The GNU GPLv3 intends to handle notices in a similar way [to v2]. It introduces the term "Appropriate Legal Notices" (ALNs), which are notices displayed in an interactive user interface that include the copyright notice. Please note that "copyright notice" is a notice that contains: the word copyright (or the (C) symbol), the year of first publication of the work, and the name of the copyright holder. Any other information is not part of a copyright notice.
[…]
The terms "legal notice" and "author attribution" cannot be stretched to cover completely different items. "Legal notice" normally means a notice advising a person of their rights or obligations. "Author attribution" is an identification of the natural person who is the author of the copyrighted work. This means that, for example, links leading to different materials are not intended to benefit from Sec. 7(b). Apart from some specific situations, logos are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions" as normally understood.
While we are open to considering arguments that some specific items could fall within either of the terms, we believe it is necessary to evaluate how a given requirement to preserve an item aligns with the intention of the GNU GPL. It has never been the intention of the GNU GPL to make it hard or impossible for users to run, modify, or distribute programs under the GNU GPL.
This largely matches the stances of Dan Brown and Euro-Office: logos are not a vehicle for attribution or copyright notices, except in potential specific cases that would need to be evaluated individually. This evaluation would consider "align[ment] with the intention of the GNU GPL," which is not to "make it hard or impossible for users to run, modify, or distribute programs." Overall, this is not at all favorable to ONLYOFFICE's case.
Fallout
Since this story has begun, on March 31, ONLYOFFICE has announced to cease partnership with Nextcloud. They cite a betrayal of trust on Nextcloud's part which, honestly, is fair given how they describe the situation. Here is how ONLYOFFICE describes what transpired between them and their former partner:
We observed repeated attempts to move beyond the agreed boundaries of cooperation, including efforts to build independent commercial offerings around our technology without proper alignment, as well as coordinated outreach targeting our employees and customers, comprising attempts to recruit our team members and influence customers' perceptions of ONLYOFFICE in ways that raised serious concerns about fair and responsible partnership conduct.
[…]
[Euro-Office] is not a new development, but a direct reuse of ONLYOFFICE technology, repackaged and presented under a different identity.
It was launched without any prior discussion or notification, and raises serious concerns regarding both licensing compliance and the way our technology is being used and represented.
More broadly, it reflects an approach where a partner's work is treated as something that can be leveraged for independent gain without proper alignment, contribution, or acknowledgment.
Independently of any legal question regarding licensing, and even considering this is just one side of the story, this is indeed not what you would expect from a partner.
I am currently not aware of a statement by Nextcloud regarding this characterization.
Conclusion
The AGPL is an open source license, and modification and distribution of code are core freedoms guaranteed by it. Despite claiming to affirm these freedoms, ONLYOFFICE's insistence in their particular attribution terms contradicts them. The majority opinion among involved parties, including of the Free Software Foundation, is that the AGPL's terms overrule these restrictions.
In a way, this clarification of ONLYOFFICE's applicable license terms was long overdue and I see this as a positive. Nevertheless, this whole drama leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and not just because it's drama per se. Despite all of this, it is a team of open source developers that now finds itself in a messy situation. The financing of open source is always a difficult topic, and despite its controversies, ONLYOFFICE did have a viable business. The long-term consequences for their project remain to be seen. We can only hope that this is not seen as a discouraging example for others considering open source.
On the other hand, the what-if that we won't be able to answer is this: what if ONLYOFFICE did not have these additional terms? Would their business have worked in the first place? I personally think that one of the biggest weaknesses of open source in general is that companies want reliable suppliers that they can hire, and then get support for the product they bought. You don't get that from a personal project, but ONLYOFFICE offered exactly that. It would be bold of me to just assert that the business would have worked without a bit of pressure towards a commercial license, but it's certainly possible.
What if ONLYOFFICE had not chosen confrontation, but accepted the fork as legitimate, retired their AGPL additions, and worked towards coexistence – maybe even as Euro-Office only being a soft fork? Would customers care that there is an alternative, when the "original" is there, and no hostilities tarnished their reputation? Granted, considering the picture that ONLYOFFICE painted of the recent past with Nextcloud, it is understandable that this hasn't happened, but I still wonder.
And finally a question about the future: ONLYOFFICE's CEO wrote "if the [FSF's] decision goes against us, we are ready to consider other options." So – what if ONLYOFFICE stops being open source? The project was reluctant to accept outside contributions; if they can strip out all outside content, relicensing is an option. Would it pay off for the company? In that case, open source users of ONLYOFFICE would basically be forced to move to Euro-Office.
Whatever the future brings, the codebase behind ONLYOFFICE will continue to be open source in one way or another. For that, the people who made that possible deserve credit – and license-conforming attribution.