this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
29 points (96.8% liked)

Opensource

6344 readers
109 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
pylapp@programming.dev
29
OnlyOffice removes Android repo and makes claims against EuroOffice (self.opensource)
submitted 6 days ago by cm0002 to c/opensource@programming.dev
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

OnlyOffice appears to have removed their Android app from their repos: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/documents-app-android

It can still be found on an archive: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FONLYOFFICE%2Fdocuments-app-android

This means if you are de-Googled like me, they are no longer an option.

Perhaps coincidentally, they have also started making legal claims against the EuroOffice fork: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE#%EF%B8%8F-legal-note

OC text by @Fmstrat@lemmy.world

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unskilled5117@feddit.org 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Regarding OnlyOffice‘s legal claims, this is the response by the FSF, which is the copyright holder to the GPL licenses . It is their opinion, that these specific license additions by OnlyOffice are not legal.

[…] In the main repository of the OnlyOffice DocumentServer, we have found that the README file (and similar README files located in other OnlyOffice repositories) clearly state that the software is made available under the AGPLv3 in the "License" section. However, OnlyOffice then includes additional terms in the LICENSE file (and in some other LICENSE files in other repositories), as well as in license notices of individual source files. In utils.js, for example, it states: "Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program." This obligation to "retain the original Product logo" is not included in Sec. 7(b) of the (A)GPLv3, nor in any other parts, as an (A)GPL-compliant additional term, and is therefore considered a further restriction of the (A)GPLv3. 

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." […]