by on April 16, 2026
This article discusses a current-headlines situation regarding Affero General Public License, version 3, Section 3, paragraph 4 (AGPLv3§7¶4.). I begin however with an explanation of the problem that clause sought to solve and how the clause works. This may seem an estoric license issue, but in fact this issue regularly impacts users today — particularly with the advent of “badgeware” (software that allows redistribution but includes annoying advertising that cannot be removed). Hopefully, this explanation helps readers understand the importance of the issue and gain vigilance when reviewing potential “further restrictions” placed on their copylefted software.
I began my work in copyleft licensing and policy in the late 1990s. In those days, there was a growing problem regarding usage of the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2) that threatened the software freedom and rights of users. It's a nefarious licensing slight-of-hand that works as follows:
The vendor seems to offer the software under a copyleft license. There's
a copy of GPLv2
in the top-level directory of the source code in a file called
GPLv2. All seems in order, and folks excitedly
engage in their right to copy, modify, and install modified versions of the
software. Maybe a few even think of a viable business idea that would
include (usually permissible) commercial redistribution of the software
for profit.
Unfortunately, someone notices a file
called LICENSE in the top-level directory that says:
Copyright (©) 1999, Sneaky Company, Inc.
This software is licensed under GPLv2, except that commercial modification and redistribution is strictly prohibited.
They've sadly discovered a self-contradictory license. Unfortunately, under GPLv2, these users are basically stuck; they have to go with the strictest possible interpretation given the self-contradiction. In essence, the licensor giveth, but the licensor immediately taketh away. In those days, these users couldn't start their business; they'd have to find or write another codebase.
I was tangentially involved with the drafting of GPLv3. On my list of issues to raise with the drafters was this very issue. By the time of GPLv3 drafting (circa 2006), this problem was rampant. Users were quite confused when they saw these self-contradictory licenses.
The solution was not obvious. Both GPLv2 and the earliest drafts GPLv3-family of licenses
(which includes GPLv3,
AGPLv3, and
LGPLv3)
already had this clause: You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein
(quoting the GPLv2 version; the
GPLv3/AGPLv3 version varies slightly).
The problem: this only prevented downstream licensors from imposing further restrictions. If a sole entity is the original author, copyright holder and initial licensor of the work — and if they hold those powers exclusively — typically that entity may issue a self-contradictory (or even completely incoherent) license. In that case, downstream licensees are awash with legal uncertainty. So, that “may not impose” clause just does not solve this particular problem.
A new clause was needed. Later drafts of the GPLv3 (which is almost textually identically to AGPLv3 — only §13 differ between the two licenses) included a fascinating solution in §7¶4:
If 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.
Copyleft is indeed most inventive when it empowers the downstream user (who, of course, is often just the next entity in a long distribution chain of (both commercial and noncommercial) software sharing). AGPLv3§7¶4 is an innovative and very necessary clause that liberates users who face the situation described at the start of this article. Had our excited new business seen this …
Copyright (©) 2008, Sneaky Company, Inc.… they could simply toss away the additional restriction like so …
This software is licensed under AGPLv3, except that commercial modification and redistribution is strictly prohibited.
Copyright (©) 2008, Sneaky Company, Inc.… and copy, modify, redistribute, redistribute modified versions and/or install modified versions of the software freely under AGPLv3's pure terms.
This software is licensed under AGPLv3, except that commercial modification and redistribution is strictly prohibited.
There remains one drawback to this solution: it demands courage from the user that strikes the “Further Restriction”. In theory, all is well and safe. In practice, the types of companies that pursue tactics like self-contradictory licenses and “gotcha” further restrictions are also the most predatory, unfriendly, litigious, and aggressive businesses. One who exercises their clear and correct rights under AGPLv3 will certainly face public condemnation, and possibly frivolous litigation.
For years, the Neo4j case was the primary exemplar of this phenomenon. SFC followed the case closely, I served as an expert witness for the Defendant, and SFC filed an amicus brief on the appeal. The lower court decision was highly problematic, and the case concluded with a voluntary dismissal (and as such has not been heard by any Appeals court). Thus, while the lower court decision does not create bad precedent, it also does not offer any good precedent for those corageous users who exercise this particular right.
(Full disclosure: SFC runs a self-hosted Nextcloud instance — but other than being fans of their work and satisfied users — we have no formal relationship with Nextcloud (or IONOS). We also certainly have no relationship whatsoever with Onlyoffice or Ascensio System SIA.)
A few weeks ago, yet another saga in the history of AGPLv3§7¶4 began. Ascensio System SIA published Onlyoffice with the sneakiest “Further Restriction” that I've ever seen. Ascensio's further restriction states:
Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program.
Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks.
This restriction is particularly nefarious because it is dressed in the trappings of explicitly permissible requirements in AGPLv3§7.
In addition to our beloved AGPLv3§7¶4, the rest of AGPLv3§7 includes some provisions designed for cross-FOSS-license compatibility. During the GPLv3 drafting process, a survey was conducted of all popular FOSS licenses. In the spirit of making sure no terms of GPLv3 inadvertently contradict a requirement in one of those licenses, AGPLv3§7(a-f) were devised for maximal cross-FOSS-license compatibility.
For example, the 3-Clause-BSD license's third clause states:
3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission
Now, get ready for Onlyoffice's trick, which takes three moves:
The trick is “too clever by half”. Ascensio have indeed created a self-contradictory license, since the users are prohibited from displaying the trademarked logo, yet the users are also forbidden to remove the code that displays that trademark logo.
We thought through this problem already years ago during AGPLv3's drafting. In fact, I recall much discussion to verify there were no strange interactions between 7(b) and 7(e) — and there are not. AGPLv3§7(b,e) states (including relevant definitions from earlier sections):
An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion. …
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:…
[7]b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or …
[7]e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks;
Nota bene: there is a very short list of things that a licensor can require
downstream licensees preserve. Logos, advertising, and similar are not on the list. Badgeware
is not a reasonable legal notice
.
Nextcloud has partnered with IONOS to fork Onlyoffice to create Euro-Office. To my knowledge, this codebase complies completely with the valid AGPLv3§7(e) requirement: Ascensio's trademarks have been scrubbed from the sources. However, since what Ascensio purports as a license term supplement pursant to AGPLv3§7(b) is actually a backdoor Further Restriction, Nextcloud and IONOS are completely within their rights (pursuant to AGPLv3§7¶4) to remove that further restriction.
As expected, Ascensio published an unfair, inaccurate, aggressive, and community-unfriendly response. I predicted long ago that adjudication AGPLv3§7¶4 would require nerves of steel. This unwarranted denigration of an upstanding member of commercial FOSS community — Nextcloud — demands condemnation and Nextcloud deserves our thanks for confronting this bully.
As I did in the Neo4j case, I've told Nextcloud that I'm available as an expert witness if they end up in litigation with Ascensio. I hope, however, that Ascensio will realize their error, remove the further restriction themselves, and embrace the value of AGPLv3. Pure AGPLv3 was designed to faciliate web service business models. Our community would quickly and gladly embrace Onlyoffice, help its upstream development, and welcome them to the FOSS community. ∎
About the author: Bradley M. Kühn is a lifelong FOSS activist and has focused his career on FOSS licensing generally, and copyleft licensing in particular. Kühn invented the Affero clause in the original AGPLv1, and co-drafted AGPLv3§13.
Bradley is not a lawyer, SFC is not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice.
Please email any comments on this entry to info@sfconservancy.org.