Recently, IONOS and Nextcloud announced their new, sovereign office suite called “Euro-Office” and claimed they were using components of ONLYOFFICE. It seems they are doing so without checking the licences first and without cooperating with them.
Original announcement:
Nextcloud and Ionos are promising a modern, open-source office suite for the summer. To achieve this goal, they have forked OnlyOffice.
ONLYOFFICE reply:
Based on publicly available information, the “Euro-Office” project uses technology derived from ONLYOFFICE editors in violation of our licensing terms and of international intellectual property law.
Uhhh is it just me or is it impossible to follow the first requirement without violating the second one? The logo requirement seems engineered to make sure that you can’t actually fork the project: if you include the original logo, they can hit you for trademark violation, and if you don’t include the logo they can say you violated their license terms.
That sounds like source-available, not open source.
Difference between Open Source and “open” source
This is “open” source and it was the main reason it got forked (lots of proprietary bits included as binary, impossible to send a PR, obfuscated code)
It’s “open” exclusively for marketing “our product is better because it’s open source” and mostly because in this way they can use GPL 3 code for libraries without paying for a different license
Fuck them
“Source available” is the accepted term. Without a legitimate well tested open source license, it isn’t free to distribute and therefore doesn’t meet the one of the 4 principles of open source.".