AGPLv3§7¶4 Empowers Users to Thwart Badgeware – Conservancy Blog

AGPLv3§7¶4 Empowers Users to Thwart Badgeware

by Bradley M. Kühn
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.

The Self-Contradictory License Problem under GPLv2

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 Novel Solution

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.

This software is licensed under AGPLv3, except that
commercial modification and redistribution is strictly
prohibited.

… they could simply toss away the additional restriction like so …

Copyright (©) 2008, Sneaky Company, Inc.

This software is licensed under AGPLv3, except that
commercial modification and redistribution is strictly
prohibited.

… and copy, modify, redistribute, redistribute modified versions and/or
install modified versions of the software freely under AGPLv3’s pure terms.

The Only Drawback

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.

Ascensio’s Onlyoffice Self-Contradictory License

(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.

The Rest of 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

AGPLv3§7(d-e) ensure that clause can never be construed to be a further
restriction.

The Onlyoffice Nasty Trick

Now, get ready for Onlyoffice’s trick, which takes three moves:

• First, Ascensio (who purports (unconfirmed) to be sole licensor of
  Onlyoffice), licenses Onlyoffice under AGPLv3.
• Second, Ascensio — pursuant to AGPLv3§7(e) — adds a valid
  additional term that declines to grant trademark rights.
• Third, Ascensio adds “badgeware” features to Onlyoffice
  — so that its trademarked logos are strewn throughout many locations in
  the UI.
• Fourth, Ascensio incorrectly claims that
  AGPLv3§7(b) requires redistributors to
  preserve those very same trademark logos in all
  redistributions.

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.

The Actual AGPLv3§7(b)

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.

Euro-Office

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.

https://viralpique.com/agplv3%c2%a77%c2%b64-empowers-users-to-thwart-badgeware-conservancy-blog/

Tags:

conservancy,
GPL