The FSF just told OnlyOffice it can't use AGPLv3 to block forks

The Free Software Foundation published a blog post on April 15 titled “You cannot use the GNU (A)GPL to take software freedom away.” Its target: OnlyOffice, whose modified AGPLv3 added a requirement that distributors retain the original product logo. The FSF’s ruling, signed by Licensing & Compliance lab member Krzysztof Siewicz, is that such a term is a “further restriction” under AGPL Section 7, and recipients can legally strip it.

What we know

• The offending clause. OnlyOffice’s DocumentServer LICENSE.txt reads, in part, “Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program.” The FSF says Section 7(b) doesn’t actually allow that requirement; it permits attribution-preservation of author notices, not brand lock-in.
• The fork that triggered it. OnlyOffice CEO Lev Bannov accused the Euro-Office fork of violating the AGPL. Bannov invited the FSF to review and said he would accept whatever determination the foundation made. He then got a determination he didn’t want.
• The FSF’s bottom line. From Siewicz: “[I]f 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.” In other words, downstream users, including Euro-Office, can delete OnlyOffice’s logo clause and keep distributing under plain AGPLv3.
• The commercial backdrop. OnlyOffice also suspended its Nextcloud partnership while this dispute played out, calling Euro-Office an “evident and material violation” of its terms. That framing now collides with the FSF’s reading of what AGPL actually requires.

What we don’t know

• What OnlyOffice does next. The FSF asked OnlyOffice to publish a clarification that the project is licensed under plain AGPLv3, that existing recipients can remove the logo term, and that future releases will ship without the further-restriction language. As of this writing, OnlyOffice hasn’t publicly responded beyond its original pro-fork-violation position. It could comply, push back, or stay silent.
• Whether Euro-Office has the development velocity to matter. FSF rulings are moral authority, not courtroom orders. If Euro-Office doesn’t have the maintainer bench to produce a real alternative, the FSF’s opinion is a footnote. Linuxiac’s reporting suggests the fork is early-stage.
• How this affects other AGPL commercial-open-source projects. Plenty of companies ship AGPL-plus-trademark-restrictions code: the “AGPL with extra strings” pattern has been standard for a decade. The FSF hasn’t formally pursued any of them. Whether this OnlyOffice ruling signals broader enforcement or is a one-off because Bannov asked for it remains open.

Why this matters for developers

The AGPL is everywhere in 2026. It’s the license Grafana Labs flipped to, the license MongoDB walked away from, the license a long list of commercial open-source projects lean on to prevent hyperscaler hosted-SaaS knockoffs. The bet those companies make is: we can stretch AGPL with custom add-on terms (trademark, branding, “you can’t run a competing service”) and users will accept them because forking is too expensive.

The FSF just drew the line the bet depends on. Add-on terms that restrict downstream freedom are “further restrictions” under Section 7, and Section 7 is unambiguous: users can remove them. That’s been in the license text since 2007. What the OnlyOffice post does is turn the academic reading into an on-record FSF enforcement opinion against a named project, on a public GitHub repo, with a direct pointer to the offending LICENSE.txt line.

If you maintain an AGPL-licensed project with extra logo/branding/anti-competition clauses, your legal footing is shakier today than it was Friday. If you’re considering forking such a project, you now have an FSF letter you can cite in your PR description.

What this means for you

If you’re a maintainer: audit your own LICENSE files this week. If there’s anything that looks like a “you must retain our logo” or “you must not remove our attribution banner” clause, get it reviewed against AGPL Section 7 before someone forks you and cites the FSF’s OnlyOffice letter back at you. Either move to a genuine copyleft license without the extra strings, or switch to a source-available license that honestly describes what you’re doing, like PolyForm or BUSL. The middle ground the FSF just closed was always legally shaky.

If you’re a downstream user picking stacks: AGPL with added restrictions is now clearly weaker protection against rebrand-style forks than its vendors implied. If the vendor was telling you their AGPL-plus-trademark setup made them fork-proof, that pitch is over. Evaluate accordingly. And if you’re the Euro-Office team: you just got a green light you can cite for the rest of the project’s life.