This file shows the email exchange by Dan Brown (danb.me) and a Legal Manager at OnlyOffice. Email addresses and the manager's name have been removed for privacy. This conversation took place in January 2025. --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Brown to OnlyOffice: --------------------------------------------------------- Hello, I'd last to ask a question around licensing. Specifically licensing for "ONLYOFFICE Docs Community Edition" as linked from here: https://www.onlyoffice.com/en/legalterms.aspx And detailed here: https://help.onlyoffice.co/products/files/doceditor.aspx?fileid=4373122&doc=cVFJ N0ZlaHowSTg0aWQ5YWNwWHQyamRrbFY2M0tNOXRkSkhUVVJWeTlhZz0_IjQzNzMxMjIi0 (https://help.onlyoffice.co/products/files/doceditor.aspx?fileid=4373122&doc =cVFJN0ZlaHowSTg0aWQ5YWNwWHQyamRrbFY2M0tNOXRkSkhUVVJWeTlhZz0_IjQzNzMxMjIi0) I'm trying to understand if it's possible that I (or anyone else) is able to host and use/distribute the provided AGPLv3 codebase in accordance to your set terms. In the terms listed in the above linked document, it states a specific logo must be retained. However, in the following line, you also deny any right to use your trademarks, and I'm assuming you're considering your logo to be your own trademark? As far as I can understand, these terms seem to be in direct conflict of eachother, and there's no way this software could be redistributed in any manner among others. Is this correct or have I misunderstood these licensing terms? Thanks, Dan --------------------------------------------------------- OnlyOffice to Dan Brown: --------------------------------------------------------- Hi Dan, Thank you for your question and for taking the time to read the license terms. Let me clarify how these terms are supposed to work together to resolve the conflict you mentioned. 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. In short, preservation of the logo is a license requirement, not an implicit grant of broader trademark rights. This approach ensures that the integrity of the original software is preserved, preventing unauthorized use of the trademarks in ways that may confuse users or misrepresent the origin of the software. To summarize: You may distribute the software under the AGPLv3 license, as long as you comply with all the terms, including preserving the logo in the specified location. You may not use our trademarks (including the logo) for any other purpose outside the scope of the license without express permission. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, do not hesitate to contact us. --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Brown to OnlyOffice: --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the response. >> You may not use our trademarks (including the logo) for any other purpose outside the scope of the license [...] The tricky part is understanding what purposes may be inside or outside the license. The AGPLv3 allows pretty much any use of the software itself. The main requirement specific to the logo is via your added supplemental term. As an example, lets say someone created an alternative hosted service, which somewhat could be seen as an alternative/competing service to what ONLYOFFICE provides. This is allowed as a use within the AGPLv3. According to your supplemental terms, they would need to retain the logo in an exact manner. Would you be happy with an alternative (potentially competing) service using your logo in this manner for their service? It seems to me that would only cause more issues, by inferring some level of official affiliation/partnership, leading to potentially more confusion. Regards, Dan --------------------------------------------------------- OnlyOffice to Dan Brown: --------------------------------------------------------- Hi Dan, Thanks for your follow-up! You've raised a valid point regarding the implications of retaining the logo while potentially operating a competing service. Our intent with this requirement is to ensure that users of redistributed or modified versions of ONLYOFFICE can clearly recognize its origin while maintaining compliance with the AGPLv3. To clarify the scope of allowed and restricted logo usage: Allowed usage (within AGPLv3 +our terms based on AGPLv3): When modifying and redistributing ONLYOFFICE under AGPLv3, the original logo must remain in the upper left corner of the UI. When using ONLYOFFICE (even a modified version) within an organization without redistribution, the logo remains as part of the interface. Restricted usage (trademark protection applies): The logo cannot be used: > for marketing, advertising, or promotional materials that could imply an official affiliation with ONLYOFFICE. > to brand a modified version of ONLYOFFICE under a different name while still displaying ONLYOFFICE branding. > on websites, social media, or other external assets in a way that misleads users into thinking a third-party service is officially endorsed by us. We understand that in some cases, retaining the logo in an alternative hosted service might create ambiguity about affiliation. While AGPLv3 allows redistribution, our trademark terms ensure that the ONLYOFFICE brand is not misrepresented. For organizations looking for more flexibility — including the ability to remove branding — we offer a commercial licensing option. This allows businesses to leverage the full capabilities of ONLYOFFICE while ensuring complete control over branding. We remain committed to open-source principles while also ensuring that our brand identity is protected and that users receive a clear and consistent experience. If there are specific concerns regarding implementation, we'd be happy to discuss possible solutions. --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Brown to OnlyOffice: --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks again for the response. >> The logo cannot be used [...] to brand a modified version of ONLYOFFICE under a different name while still displaying ONLYOFFICE branding. So just to confirm, it's not possible to provide an alternative modified offering following your desired terms, under the AGPLv3 option since that offering would be in breach of the trademark terms (needing to display while not being allowed to use it as per your advise above)? Also, are you confident that your supplemental term for the logo really fits as per Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPLv3? From my non-legal expert understanding, effectively preventing certain modification, and requiring certain use of trademarks, goes quite beyond the scope of what that term allows and is in counter to the spirit of such a license. My overall concern is that open source, and such licenses like the AGPLv3, generally allow software to thrive and survive under new authorship. This seems specifically limited here by the combination of terms in play here. I totally appreciate the right to receive correct credit and attribution for your works, but you are effectively preventing modification and the practical possibility of forking to new ownership, which goes against open source, free software and the AGPLv3 itself really. Regards, Dan --------------------------------------------------------- OnlyOffice to Dan Brown: --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks again for your thoughtful follow-up. You raise an important point regarding the desire to create an independent offering based on a modified version of ONLYOFFICE. I want to reiterate that the intent behind the requirement to retain the ONLYOFFICE logo is not to restrict genuine modifications or new authorship, but to ensure that the original source and attribution are clear to users, preventing any misleading impressions about its origin or support. Consequently, you are free to modify the software as per AGPLv3, provided you comply with the logo requirement when redistributing. I understand your concern about potential limitations on forking and branding. However, we share the understanding that open-source licenses like AGPLv3 are designed to foster innovation, modification, and redistribution. Our approach to dual licensing is intended to strike a balance between these open-source principles and our need to protect the ONLYOFFICE brand, while also offering an option for commercial users who may want to use the software without branding or other restrictions. Dual licensing allows us to continue contributing to the open-source community while also addressing the needs of commercial users and ensuring that our brand is protected and accurately represented. By offering both AGPLv3 for open-source use and a commercial license for those who seek more flexibility, we aim to meet the constructive interests of different stakeholders: those who wish to contribute to and benefit from open-source software, and those who require a more tailored solution for their business needs. All of this is fully compatible with AGPLv3 and built upon its principles. If you have further thoughts or suggestions, I'd be happy to continue the conversation.