You cannot use the GNU (A)GPL to take software freedom away
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is the steward of the GNU family of General Public Licenses (GPL), which were carefully drafted to ensure that copyright holders have a tool to release programs as free software, protecting and preserving the freedoms of computer users. The FSF has always allowed everyone to use our licenses as intended, in line with the core principles of free software — to ensure that users have the freedom to run, copy, study, change, improve, and distribute software. We are always happy to see more programs properly released under one of our licenses, and favor compliance and constructive dialogue in our approach to resolving licensing issues.
The (A)GPL was designed to give freedom, not take it away.
The FSF was recently mentioned by Lev Bannov of the OnlyOffice project in connection with their use of a modified version of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPLv3). This, in addition to the OnlyOffice team's public position regarding its recent Euro-Office fork, suggests an attempt to impose an additional restriction on the AGPLv3 that is inconsistent with the freedoms granted by the license. We would have been happy to offer our position and guidance in private before OnlyOffice published the license with their additional restriction(s), as we do for many other projects. We would still be happy to assist OnlyOffice aligning its approach with the intended use of the AGPLv3. But, since any effort to put (A)GPL-incompatible terms on an (A)GPL license confuses users about their freedoms, it is thus our duty to clarify how the AGPLv3 is intended to work.
It is possible to modify the (A)GPLv3 with additional terms, but only by adhering to the terms of the license. One can also legally use the (A)GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license imposing terms outside of what the (A)GPLv3 allows, but then referring to the license as "the (A)GPL" would be false. As described in the FSF's Frequently Asked Questions on GNU Licenses, this kind of license modification has requirements to make sure the resulting license is never confused with any of the FSF's licenses.
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."
We encourage everyone to carefully read the FSF's licenses and consult our published materials before attempting to develop additional terms. We host the documentation of the (A)GPLv3 drafting process and we also published our recommendations for (A)GPL-compliant additional terms that require preserving author attributions or legal notices. People can also write to us at licensing@fsf.org with licensing questions. Modifying a GNU license with additional terms in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the license is good for software freedom, but it is our duty to react when GNU licenses are misused by altering them with terms that confuse users about the freedoms they grant. We cannot allow anyone to make unauthorized derivative works of our licenses, nor allow or accept confusing uses of the FSF's trademarks.
We urge OnlyOffice to clarify the situation by making it unambiguous that OnlyOffice is licensed under the AGPLv3, and that users who already received copies of the software are allowed to remove any further restrictions. Additionally, if they intend to continue to use the AGPLv3 for future releases, they should state clearly that the program is licensed under the AGPLv3 and make sure they remove any further restrictions from their program documentation and source code. Confusing users by attaching further restrictions to any of the FSF's family of GNU General Public Licenses is not in line with free software.
This work, "A pile of restrictions," is adapted from "Stack of papers" © 2013 by Glitch, made available under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. "A pile of restrictions" © 2026 Free Software Foundation, Inc., by Eko K. A. Owen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
