The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has issued a stern warning to the developer community, asserting that the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPLv3) cannot be used as a vehicle to strip away software freedom. The dispute centers on the OnlyOffice project, which the FSF claims has attempted to impose “further restrictions” on its software while still labeling it under the AGPLv3.
At the heart of the conflict is a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes a free software license. For the FSF, the steward of the GNU family of licenses, the AGPLv3 is designed to ensure that users maintain the freedom to run, copy, study, change, improve and distribute software. When a project adds its own proprietary constraints to that framework, it creates a legal contradiction that the FSF argues confuses users and undermines the very purpose of copyleft.
The tension escalated after Lev Bannov of the OnlyOffice project mentioned the FSF in connection with the project’s use of a modified version of the license. According to the FSF, OnlyOffice’s public stance regarding its recent Euro-Office fork suggests an attempt to restrict the freedoms typically granted by the AGPLv3, leading the foundation to publicly clarify the intended operation of the license to protect the broader ecosystem of GNU AGPL software freedom.
The ‘Further Restrictions’ Conflict
The FSF points to a specific discrepancy in the OnlyOffice DocumentServer repository. While the project’s README files state that the software is available under the AGPLv3, the FSF discovered conflicting terms within the LICENSE files and individual source code notices. This “split personality” in documentation is where the legal friction begins.
Specifically, the FSF highlighted a requirement found in the utils.js file, which states that users must retain the original product logo when distributing the program. The FSF asserts that this obligation to preserve a logo is not part of Section 7(b) of the AGPLv3, nor is it an AGPL-compliant additional term. In the eyes of the foundation, Here’s a “further restriction” that contradicts the license’s core tenets.
Under the terms of the AGPLv3, licensees are explicitly permitted to remove any such additional restrictions. The license states that if a program contains a notice stating it is governed by the license along with a term that is a further restriction, the user may remove that term. By adding the logo requirement, the FSF argues that OnlyOffice is attempting to enforce a rule that the license itself allows users to ignore.
How License Modifications Actually Work
As a former software engineer, I’ve seen many projects struggle with the nuance of open-source compliance. There is a common misconception that you can simply “tweak” a GPL license to fit a corporate branding strategy. However, the FSF maintains a strict line between a compliant modification and an unauthorized restriction.
It is legally possible to modify the AGPLv3 with additional terms, but only if those terms adhere to the license’s own rules. Alternatively, a developer can create an entirely new license that uses some AGPL terms but imposes different restrictions. The critical failure, according to the FSF, is calling such a hybrid license “the AGPL.” Doing so is considered false and misleading to the developer community.
To clarify the stakes, the following table outlines the difference between a standard AGPLv3 implementation and the “restricted” approach the FSF is currently challenging in the OnlyOffice case.
| Feature | Standard AGPLv3 | Restricted Implementation (as alleged) |
|---|---|---|
| User Freedom | Full right to modify and redistribute | Modification allowed, but with branding constraints |
| Logo/Branding | No mandatory logo retention | Requirement to keep original product logo |
| License Name | Officially GNU AGPLv3 | Labeled AGPLv3 but contains external terms |
| User Rights | Can remove “further restrictions” | Attempts to enforce non-license terms |
The Impact on the Open Source Ecosystem
This dispute is about more than just a logo in a JavaScript file. it is about the integrity of the “copyleft” mechanism. The AGPLv3 was specifically designed to close the “ASP loophole,” ensuring that software run over a network (such as cloud services) remains free by requiring the source code to be made available to users interacting with it over the network. This makes the AGPLv3 text a critical tool for maintaining GNU AGPL software freedom in the era of SaaS.
When a project uses the AGPL brand but adds restrictions, it creates a “gray area” for downstream developers. If a developer forks a project believing it is fully AGPLv3, they may unknowingly violate a “further restriction” like a logo requirement, or conversely, they may be intimidated into believing they have fewer rights than they actually do. The FSF argues that this confusion is a direct threat to the health of free software.
The foundation has urged OnlyOffice to make its licensing unambiguous. The FSF’s demand is twofold: first, that OnlyOffice clearly state the software is licensed under the AGPLv3 and acknowledge that users are allowed to remove further restrictions; and second, that any future releases remove these restrictions from the documentation and source code entirely.
Navigating License Compliance
For developers and startups navigating these waters, the FSF recommends consulting the GNU license documentation and the drafting process records before attempting to add custom terms. The foundation provides specific recommendations for compliant additional terms, particularly those regarding author attributions or legal notices, which can be implemented without violating the spirit of the license.
The FSF remains open to constructive dialogue and has offered to assist OnlyOffice in aligning its approach with the intended use of the AGPLv3. However, the foundation emphasizes that it cannot allow unauthorized derivative works of its licenses or the confusing use of FSF trademarks.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Software licensing is a complex legal field; developers should consult with legal counsel regarding specific compliance issues.
The next step in this situation depends on whether OnlyOffice chooses to amend its repository terms or maintain its current licensing structure. The FSF continues to monitor the project’s repositories and encourages users to report instances where license terms are being misused to restrict software freedoms.
Do you think branding requirements should be allowed in “free” software, or does that break the fundamental promise of the GPL? Let us know in the comments or share this story with your dev team.
Related reading
