coalition of European enterprises and community organizations today have launched Euro-Office, a solution for editing documents, spreadsheets and presentations, developed as a true sovereign community collaboration of over a dozen different organizations.
The legal battle between euro office and onlyoffice is interesting. I actually hope it goes to european courts. I suspect onlyoffice will win this one, but then everyone will abandon their code.
Simultaneously TDF and collabora are having a spat.
Interesting things afoot in the FOSS hosted office ecosystem. Prediction: a third option emerges – clean room rewrite (maybe this is a good thing).
I suspect onlyoffice will win this one
I’m sceptical tbh, their interpretation of the AGPL seems questionable. The specific wording in the AGPL they’re relying on for their logo preservation term is:
Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it
IMO a logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.
The ones the register talked to seem to agree with you
https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/02/eurooffice_forks_onlyoffice/
I don’t think OnlyOffice will win in court.
AGPL3 prevents you from adding restrictions.
In clause 7 3(b) they add a clause that you must keep their Logo etc. In the UI
The almost immediately in a follow up clause restrict anyone from using their Logo etc.
With those clauses, you can’t fork the repo. Which adds a restriction, which is against AGPL3
The problem with this is that OnlyOffice owns the copyright and used attribution agreements from any contributions. Meaning, as owners of the copyright, they are allowed to set the license. So if they applied the AGPL wrong, they aren’t violating anyone else’s copyright. If OnlyOffice has used someone else’s AGPL code and then added these impossible restrictions, then I would agree.
They took AGPL3 and added a clause to it under a section where you’re allowed to add clauses.
However in AGPL3 it says you’re not allowed to add restrictions.
So in their own liscence it says they are not allowed to add restrictions beyond a certain scope.
And then they break that rule.
So I’d say their extra clause, according to they liscence they released, is invalid
With how bloated nextcloud is with their docker aio mess I’m not thrilled to see them take the lead on this.
I run mine using a helm chart in Kubernettes, it’s running pretty smoothly
I can throw enough hw at it to get it up n running too, I just rather build my own suite of more single purpose software that I can tailor to my own needs. :)
I only use nextcloud as a Drive, and I use deck.
So it’s fairly easy to replace with alternatives, or build your own.
I considered not running it and looking for alternatives, but it’s quite influential and big in the FOSS world, so I like using it and seeing how it progresses and how it is to use
trying to run nextcloud using the aio thing was one of the most frustrating things ever. it is so slooow. I ditched it pretty quick
