Crumb
c/opensource · by cm0002@lemdro.id · 52d

OnlyOffice removes Android repo and makes claims against EuroOffice

OnlyOffice appears to have removed their Android app from their repos: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/documents-app-android

It can still be found on an archive: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FONLYOFFICE%2Fdocuments-app-android

This means if you are de-Googled like me, they are no longer an option.

Perhaps coincidentally, they have also started making legal claims against the EuroOffice fork: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE#%EF%B8%8F-legal-note

OC text by @Fmstrat@lemmy.world

38 points · 9 comments · view on lemmy.world

9 Comments

unskilled5117@feddit.org · 27 pts · 52d

Regarding OnlyOffice‘s legal claims, this is the response by the FSF, which is the copyright holder to the GPL licenses . It is their opinion, that these specific license additions by OnlyOffice are not legal.

[…] In the main repository of the OnlyOffice DocumentServer, we have found that the README file (and similar README files located in other OnlyOffice repositories) clearly state that the software is made available under the AGPLv3 in the "License" section. However, OnlyOffice then includes additional terms in the LICENSE file (and in some other LICENSE files in other repositories), as well as in license notices of individual source files. In utils.js, for example, it states: "Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program." This obligation to "retain the original Product logo" is not included in Sec. 7(b) of the (A)GPLv3, nor in any other parts, as an (A)GPL-compliant additional term, and is therefore considered a further restriction of the (A)GPLv3. 

The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are "further restrictions" under the (A)GPLv3. It states, "[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." […]

Ghoelian@piefed.social · 5 pts · 51d (2 replies)

OnlyOffice uses the proprietary Microsoft file formats, so they were already not an option for me.

aksdb@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 51d (1 reply)

Technically Office Open XML is not proprietary, since they published and standardized it under ISO/IEC 29500. Practically no software suite besides MS Office is able to render it 100% compatible to each other. But to be fair, neither did OpenDocument; a document in LibreOffice odt looks slightly different in OnlyOffice, WPS, SoftMaker, etc.

Ghoelian@piefed.social · 1 pts · 50d

Huh you're right, seems they even publish specs of their own extensions to the format.

They still restrict what you can do with it and how you can share it though, so technically still proprietary.

Angryhumanoid@fedinsfw.app · 2 pts · 52d (1 reply)

Read that too fast and thought it says OnlyFans, so I was intrigued. And yeah having read it properly now it's still interesting, and much less confusing.

vk6flab@lemmy.radio · 3 pts · 51d

I read "OpenOffice" and was very confused too, but eventually my brain caught up. Now I'm just bemused.

sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 51d (1 reply)

Was there an advantage to using only office over colabora

Ghoelian@piefed.social · 3 pts · 51d

Collabora office is based on LibreOffice. I think they mostly just tweak the UI, functionally it's pretty much LibreOffice.

OnlyOffice tries to be very similar to Microsoft Office I think, similar to Collabora, but they also use Microsoft's proprietary file format (which I'm not sure collabora does, LibreOffice does not by default)

Marija@programming.dev · 1 pts · 49d

I feel like open source drama always seems more complicated than headlines suggest