The Battle Over Software Freedom: FSF Challenges OnlyOffice on AGPLv3 Compliance
In the world of free software, the line between “open” and “restricted” is often drawn by a few lines of legal text. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses (GPL), has recently stepped in to clarify a critical boundary regarding the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPLv3). At the center of the dispute is OnlyOffice and its attempt to impose additional restrictions on a license designed specifically to prevent them.
- The FSF has identified “further restrictions” in OnlyOffice’s implementation of the AGPLv3.
- A specific requirement to retain the original product logo in source files (such as
utils.js) is flagged as a violation of the license’s intent. - The AGPLv3 explicitly allows users to remove any “further restrictions” added to the license.
- The FSF is urging OnlyOffice to align its documentation and source code with the intended use of the AGPLv3.
The Philosophy of the AGPLv3
The AGPLv3 isn’t just a legal document; it’s a tool designed to protect the freedoms of computer users. The core principle is simple: users must have the freedom to run, copy, study, change, improve, and distribute software. When a project releases software under this license, it’s making a commitment to preserve those liberties.
However, a tension often arises when organizations want the benefits of a free software community while maintaining corporate branding or control. This is where the concept of “further restrictions” comes into play. While the FSF allows for some modifications to its licenses, these must be done in a way that doesn’t confuse users or strip away their fundamental rights.
The OnlyOffice Controversy: Branding vs. Freedom
The current friction began after Lev Bannov of the OnlyOffice project mentioned the FSF in connection with OnlyOffice’s use of a modified AGPLv3. Upon review, the FSF found a discrepancy between how the software is marketed and how it’s actually licensed in the code.
While the README files in OnlyOffice’s main repositories state the software is available under the AGPLv3, the actual LICENSE files and individual source files tell a different story. For example, in the file utils.js, the software includes a notice stating: “Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program.”
The FSF points out a glaring issue: this obligation to retain the product logo does not exist in Section 7(b) of the AGPLv3, nor anywhere else in the license as a compliant additional term. By adding this requirement, OnlyOffice has effectively imposed a “further restriction” on the software.
Why “Further Restrictions” Matter
You might wonder why a simple logo requirement is such a big deal. In the ecosystem of free software, any restriction that limits how a user can modify or redistribute a program is a breach of the license’s core purpose. If a company can mandate a logo, they can potentially mandate other restrictions that further erode user freedom.
The AGPLv3 anticipates this scenario. The license explicitly 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 is permitted to remove that term. The license gives users the legal authority to strip away unauthorized restrictions to restore the software’s freedom.
The FSF’s Call to Action
The FSF isn’t looking for a legal battle, but for clarity, and compliance. They’ve expressed a preference for constructive dialogue and have offered to provide guidance to projects to help them align their approach with the AGPLv3.
To resolve the current situation, the FSF is urging OnlyOffice to:
- Clarify the licensing: Make it unambiguous that OnlyOffice is licensed under the AGPLv3.
- Notify existing users: Explicitly state that users who have already received copies of the software are allowed to remove any further restrictions.
- Clean up the code: Remove all unauthorized restrictions from future releases, including documentation and source code.
Common Questions About GNU Licensing
Can I modify a GNU license?
Yes, it’s possible to modify the AGPLv3 with additional terms, but only if those terms adhere to the requirements of the license itself. If the modifications impose terms outside of what the AGPLv3 allows, referring to the resulting license as “the AGPL” is considered false.
Where can I get help with licensing?
The FSF provides extensive documentation on the AGPLv3 drafting process and recommendations for compliant additional terms, particularly those regarding author attributions or legal notices. Developers can also reach out directly to licensing@fsf.org.
Looking Ahead
The clash between OnlyOffice and the FSF highlights a recurring theme in modern software development: the struggle to balance corporate identity with the rigorous demands of software freedom. As more enterprises adopt “open” models, the FSF’s role as a watchdog becomes increasingly vital. For developers and users alike, the lesson is clear: a license is only as strong as its implementation. When “further restrictions” creep into the code, the exceptionally definition of free software is at stake.