> 1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated
The part of the license violated was the removal of OnlyOffice's trademark and branding. Yet their license does not provide a right to use their trademark and branding. Those rights are still fully reserved by OnlyOffice.
This allows OnlyOffice to use legal means to shut down any fork or changes they are not comfortable with.
I think you're claiming wrong stuff here. AGPLv3 section 7 paragraph b) expressively authorize the author to require an attribution in the derived work or copy. What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution, so they actually mooted their own right to use the code under that license. There's nothing related to trademark or branding violation here. If OnlyOffice attacked Nextcloud for using their TM or brand for respecting the license, they would be debunked at a trial (if it even reach a trial), since they expressively allowed the use of the attribution in distributing their work with this license. Note: This license doesn't give you the right to use the branding of OnlyOffice on a derived product and claim it's yours or you're acting as them, that's a complete different usage case here.
> you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program
I understand "retain" in the way that you have to display the logo anywhere where the original OnlyOffice displays it. So I think you actually have to "use the branding of OnlyOffice".
----
> What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution
Did they? If including the logo anywhere counts as attribution, I don't think they did. The logo is still present in several places:
AGPL allows for compatibility with a requirement for attribution but it doesn’t not allow (and explicitly says people can ignore) any further requirements beyond that.
A copyright attribution is e.g: “Copyright 2026 kube-system”. Attribution does not mean the same thing as “logo” or “branding”
The OnlyOffice license is ultimately a terrible crayon license. Those two requirements they wrote in are self contradictory… in consecutive sentences even. I kind of doubt that any court is gonna take that super seriously. It seems to be intentionally misleading or malicious, which is frowned upon.
> 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.
> Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software.
IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.
They’re mistakenly conflating “attribution” with “branding” or “trademark”. They’re different things. In the context of a copyright license, attribution is something like “// Copyright 2012 <whoever> Corporation” that you might see in a source file.
This use doesn’t violate trademark because you aren’t pretending to be them, you are attributing them as the source. Just like I can say “the Big Mac is a sandwich at McDonalds” and my comment is completely legal.
Even if “attribution” didn’t already mean something different — this reading of the AGPL is laughably stupid — first of all, you can’t compel someone to break the law in a contract anyway... and second, that’s an illogical interpretation of that section. Why would it be intentionally self contradictory? Clearly that isn’t right.
Requiring specific branding is not provided for in 7 § 3(b) and it is specifically forbidden by the the sentences that immediately follow:
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. 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.
What they should do is make sure they keep all attribution in source files and tell them to pound sand about their bogus branding claims.
You're right, the branding claim here is BS but attribution requirements are legit. I only took a cursory glance at their repo, but I don't see any copyright notices for OnlyOffice in EuroOffice. There should be.
I said "OnlyOffice is claiming" intentionally -- if it's BS then it's BS. I don't see anything in AGPLv3 that allows them to require branding, only attribution.
Still, you can (and often will) terminate a business partnership over BS arguments.
The sharp edges are exclusively an issue with the Framework 16 due to the spacers that allow you to change the alignment of the trackpad. It's definitely been one of my main annoyances with my F16 that I didn't experience with my F13. I've been scratched by them and had my arm hair caught and pulled.
However, Framework has already indicated that they are looking into providing an input module that spans the entire width of the device to eliminate the need for the spacers.
I don't really know what the "creaking screen" is about though. IMO the F16 screen and hinges are a higher build quality than the F13. I had to upgrade my F13 hinges to the 4kg hinges to keep it from bouncing and moving.
> I don't really know what the "creaking screen" is about though. IMO the F16 screen and hinges are a higher build quality than the F13. I had to upgrade my F13 hinges to the 4kg hinges to keep it from bouncing and moving.
I think the comment was referring to the noise of the spacers, unless the author also thought it was in relation to the display. So to clarify, the display makes no noise whatsoever and neither do the hinges. The noise shown in the video is specifically about the trackpad and keyboard spacers.
Damn, I apparently missed the memo that the backend service for Mozilla Monitor was shady while I used it.
Are there any actual services like this that work properly? I've noticed whenever it indicated that a service has removed my data, that same service would come back online as having my data a few weeks later.
The "respawning" issue slabity mentioned where data vanishes and then pops back up weeks later is the core structural problem of this industry. It’s a game of whack-a-mole: you get removed from Broker A, but they re-ingest your data from a public record scrape or another broker a few months later. That’s why effective removal has to be continuous, not a one-off.
However, the specific issue Krebs highlights with Mozilla/OneRep is trust. It turns out OneRep’s founder was actually running active people-search sites (like Nuwber) on the side. It's hard to trust a removal service that has a financial stake in the very industry it's supposed to be fighting.
For an alternative without that conflict, take a look at Optery (YC W22). We've been flagging the OneRep situation for years. Full disclosure, I'm on the team at Optery. Optery launched on HN in 2021.
Looks more like an ad for your app though... Which for some reason collects tons of data unrelated to health, like messages, location data, and photos/videos/files?
Photos are used to track nutrition -- you choose each photo to upload within the app.
Location is only used, in context, to help find healthy meals near you. (You can use the app with or without enabling this location-based feature; if you don't use it, then we don't ask for location.)
Where are you seeing messages? We don't track messages, so this is probably a mistake in our metadata.
Sorry for being pessimistic, it's just whenever I see a health related app I immediately look at the data collected and data shared sections and get concerned. Especially if it's being shared with insurance companies.
Quick edit: That "messages" part might be only in-app ones. Google does not word that well in the summary.
I see -- yeah, the Android metadata says "in-app messages". That refers to features where you can message support or a doctor within the app. We don't attempt to read your text messages or anything like that.
You think that's bad? I had my own Google Workspace account with Google Domains and then foolishly linked my Google Fi cellphone to it.
Trying to get that stuff resolved was such a pain that I eventually had to ask a friend who knew someone that worked at Google for assistance. Their support team had absolutely no public contact info available. I eventually managed to get my data and migrate the services I actually use (Google Fi and Youtube) to a non-workspace account.
The funny thing is that a few months later they tried to send a $60 bill to collections because they reopened the account for 2 days for me to migrate things off. I was originally going to pay it to just get them off my back, but Google's own collections agency wouldn't let me pay through card or check or anything. The only way I could pay was to "Log into your Google Workspace account" which NO LONGER EXISTED.
Now it's just an amusing story about incompetence to look back on, but at the time it was stressful because I almost lost my domains, cell phone number, and email addresses all at once. Now I never trust anything to a single company.
Ironically, I stopped paying for a workspace a few years ago when I shutdown a startup. The workspace got suspended and removed. I am still able to use it across any service requiring a Google account, which makes me think that if I buy a failed startup domain and sign up I could get access to their data.
> Guess I'm not moving on from the RP2040 anytime soon...
Doesn't matter what you move to, there's still going to be 2000 pages of datasheets+errata, and one line in the middle of all of that will tell you "This does not work".
That's why for hobbyists it's best to stick to devices with a large community around them, who surface niche problems in community forums.
However, with everyone moving to Discord, this will no longer be useful too...
I've been interested in the progress of the PineNote since the reMarkable company decided to put certain advertised features behind a subscription paywall.
Does anyone have any information on the OS being developed looks like? I have not been able to find any videos or screenshots that indicate what interacting with the device is expected to look like. I found this blog post here, but it shows it running a GNOME environment which is... Not at all what I would hope for in this type of device: https://pine64.org/2024/10/02/september_2024/#pinenote
Here is a rather old vid of the interface I put together for use on my Pinenote. I’m still running Sway with lisgd for gestures, waybar + lavalauncher for widgets. Lots more possibilities if you are into ags/gjs, eww and others.
It’s a great device and I wish people would be a little more open to taking the plunge with it. Forget boox—-you won’t be able to properly root it, they disrespect and even stole FOSS. Meanwhile, remarkable is cool, but anemic hardware compared to Pinenote.
Thank you for sharing this with me. This is the first time I've seen the `rnote` app on an E-ink device. I'm quite surprised in how functional it looks, though I can already tell the latency is quite high.
I'm definitely going to keep my eye on this device though. I think it will just be a few more years before the software has caught up with the hardware.
It's Debian running GNOME. You can install whatever UI you want from the repos, but the developers have written convenience tools in the form of GNOME extensions, which you can see in the top bar in the photos. It works fine, in my experience, modulo some finicky bits involving the onscreen keyboard. I have the original developer model, and I don't know what differences exist in the community edition.
GNOME is the one Linux desktop environment that can be said to work reasonably well on tablet devices, including the PineNote. It also has well-supported "high contrast" and "reduced animations" modes that can serve to enhance UX on an epaper display.
I think there may be a misunderstanding of my point.
The fact that GNOME works well on typical tablets isn't really relevant here. The PineNote is an E-ink device with very specific hardware constraints and use cases. It's primarily meant for reading and writing, and these tasks require software specifically optimized for E-ink displays and low-power operation.
I've personally experimented with desktop environments like XFCE and i3 on a reMarkable 2. While it was an interesting technical exercise, the experience wasn't practical for daily use. For comparison, look at the reMarkable's unofficial/hacked ecosystem (https://github.com/reHackable/awesome-reMarkable) - it's full of applications and utilities specifically designed for E-ink displays and writing/reading workflows.
This is why I'm hesitant about the "community device" designation. Simply saying "it runs GNOME" doesn't tell us anything about the actual user experience for reading and writing on E-ink. To be clear, my concern isn't that it runs GNOME - it's that this seems to be the only information available about the software experience.
> Note: Determinate Nix is not a fork, it is a downstream. Our plan, and intent, is to keep all our patches sent to the upstream project first.
And what happens if the Nix community doesn't pull those patches, and instead goes with a different solution? Will your downstream adapt to the upstream project, possibly breaking things for your customers?
Indeed, part of the motivation for our downstream distribution is to be able to ship some of our patches faster than upstream wants to. However, these patches are generally about usability improvements that are not incompatible.
If the upstream project evolves in a different direction, it will be on us to move with them too.
Even if the OS could perfectly deduplicate pages based on their contents, static linking doesn't guarantee identical pages across applications. Programs may include different subsets of library functions and the linker can throw out unused ones. Library code isn't necessarily aligned consistently across programs or the pages. And if you're doing any sort of LTO then that can change function behavior, inlining, and code layout.
It's unlikely for the OS to effectively deduplicate memory pages from statically linked libraries across different applications.
The part of the license violated was the removal of OnlyOffice's trademark and branding. Yet their license does not provide a right to use their trademark and branding. Those rights are still fully reserved by OnlyOffice.
This allows OnlyOffice to use legal means to shut down any fork or changes they are not comfortable with.
reply