bjorney

These don’t fall under section 10 though - 7A through F detail the terms that are explicitly exempt from the restriction on adding additional terms.

Other people have argued that these are contradictory - but you don’t need trademark rights to display a logo if the purpose of the display is to directly refer to the trademarked material. They are likely hoping for something along the lines of “powered by <onlyoffice logo>”. For example, Coca Cola logos and trademarks have appeared in TONS of Pepsi marketing materials, because those trademarks were used to directly refer to the coca cola brand, which is fair use.

I think what it comes down to is whether the courts see “displaying the logo” as “reasonable” attribution or not.

7b of the AGPL specifically allows additional terms to be added to the license as it pertains to preserving attribution or legal notices.

The AGPL license allows the license holder to specify additional terms of the license that require preservation of specified reasonable attributions or legal notices - this is covered in 7B, and the onlyoffice license specifies that the logo must be preserved for attribution.

Assuming a logo legally counts as reasonable attribution (IANAL) that would put only office in the right here, but holy shit, the fact that the license allows these modifications to be put on line #655 rather than line #2 is absurd. I, like most people I assume, only read far enough into the license to figure out whether it’s MIT or GPL