Hacker News Reader

Comment by t0mas88 | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the whole idea behind AGPL that you're allowed to fork and modify it as long as you provide your modified source code to the users?

View on HN

OnlyOffice was trying to implement some extra restrictions on top of the AGPL. Now they seem to be throwing a fit knowing that was not allowed. You can't bake your pie and eat it too.

This is bullshit. Read section 7 paragraph b of the AGPLv3 license, and you'll see that OnlyOffice did what they were allowed to do. The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner which will likely cause more damage to them if OO's lawyer starts to have a look on this. People don't read license text, but they should, because they think AGPL is like GPL which is not the case, they are additional restrictions to the former.

>The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner

are neowin and nextcloud affiliated somehow? or which nextcloud blog are you referring to?

The FSF has specifically stated that 7(b) does not apply to branding and requiring such is a violation of 7(b) that may be removed.

> You can't bake your pie and eat it too.

This seems like a corruption of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I'm somewhat confused as you can definitely both bake a pie and eat it too. Or are you trying to make some kind of point that I'm missing?

> You can't bake your pie and eat it too.

If you don't, I would advise you to at least attempt doing so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com