The Free Software Foundation said OnlyOffice that removing FSF branding does not permit using the GNU AGPL to restrict software freedom.[1]
The dispute matters because the AGPL is a cornerstone of many open‑source projects; a precedent that it can be twisted to curtail rights could undermine the trust that developers place in copyleft licenses.[2]
OnlyOffice CEO Lev Bannov said the company removed all references to the FSF brand and attributes as required by its license, a move that the FSF says does not change the license’s intent.[1]
In a blog post, Richard M. Stallman of the FSF said the AGPL “is not a tool for taking software freedom away; it is a safeguard that ensures downstream users retain the same freedoms.”[2]
The conflict centers on the Euro‑Office project, a fork of OnlyOffice designed as a sovereign Microsoft‑Office replacement for Nextcloud. The project’s code is distributed under the AGPL, which obliges anyone who modifies the software to provide source code to users and to keep the same licensing terms intact.[1]
OnlyOffice’s March 30, 2026 statement, published on its site, claimed the removal of branding complied with the AGPL’s requirements, a point the FSF disputes, arguing that branding removal does not grant permission to add restrictive clauses.[1]
A separate report from MSN Technology noted an appellate court case where a vendor was allowed to amend the AGPL with new binding terms, suggesting that legal interpretations can vary.[3] The FSF, however, said that the license’s text cannot be overridden without violating its core principles.[2]
Legal experts say the FSF’s position reinforces the idea that copyleft licenses are immutable contracts; any attempt to dilute them could expose vendors to community backlash and potential license violations.[2]
Open‑source communities have responded with renewed calls for clear attribution guidelines and for vendors to respect the spirit, not just the letter, of copyleft licenses.[1]
**What this means** – The FSF’s admonition signals that any company using the AGPL must honor both its technical and philosophical requirements. Ignoring this could lead to fragmented compliance, legal uncertainty, and erosion of confidence among developers who rely on the license to protect their work.
“They removed all references to our brand/attribute as required by our license.”
The FSF’s admonition signals that any company using the AGPL must honor both its technical and philosophical requirements. Ignoring this could lead to fragmented compliance, legal uncertainty, and erosion of confidence among developers who rely on the license to protect their work.
