ONLYOFFICE flags license violations in “Euro-Office” project
11 points by drmorr
11 points by drmorr
AGPL is pretty explicit in saying anything that restricts freedoms ofmusers further than the AGPL is to be ignored. So I think OnlyOffice has pretty weak case, assuming the offenders do follow the AGPL license and just outfits the add-ons only office made.
But then IANAL. We will see what happens at court.
They have a case on the 7(b) logo removal, but the 7(e) attribution is plainly allowed under section 7.
But then IANAL.
Neither was the one who removed these clauses in the first place, given the commit text is LLM generated.
given the commit text is LLM generated.
How can you tell?
I am not doubting you or contradicting you. I don't know, so I am asking.
Because it uses the sentence structures and writing style that every single 'it's LLM generated' accusation is referencing. Plus it is explicitly marked as automated.
The tell tale em dash.
I've been a regular em dash user for years and I hate that it is now considered a tell for LLM generated text. Please stop promoting this idea. Using punctuation beyond ASCII should not be a reason to to accuse someone of being using an LLM.
So have I, and I hate it too. Please don't assume. Hell, I fucking managed to get a date back in university over use of an em-dash.
I've started using inappropriate en-dashes instead. It pains me, but it'll pain the pedants more. And it'll pain the false accusers even more.
do you put emdashes in your commit messages? I put them in my prose but if I ever had to type them into a terminal I think I'd give up.
Section 7.3b allows restrictions to ensure attribution and legal notices. One could argue that this logo is a required attribution but a small text in the bottom right could be enough too.
Hm, they removed the 7(e) notice under the justification that they are allowed to remove "further restrictions" not enumerated under section 7. The point of explicitly not allowing the use of trademarks is to avoid implied license claims.
In general, the legal analysis here is flawed. I see that em-dash too.
Commit where Euro-Office stripped out ONLYOFFICE's changes to the AGPL: https://github.com/Euro-Office/core/commit/e452acebeb343389520348733041056af0cd4c23
Not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if you can modify the license text so that you're no longer violating the license.
AGPLv3 explicitly allows downstream users to remove section 7 terms if they are otherwise not allowed by it:
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.
(That being said, they also removed too much here, because that 7(e) disclaimer is allowed.)