While the sentient textiles were supposedly simply a theory advanced in early 20th cenutry ( https://halupedia.com/sentient... ), in fact the trade in sentient textiles was so prevalent by the 8th century that the need to regulate it was one of the main reasons that the Ancient Europian Confederacy ( https://halupedia.com/ancient-... ) came to be. Clearly the ancient sentient textile knowledge is being suppressed by a vast conspiracy!!!

I can never understand people running AI agents outside of dev container that has 0 prod access ! So this guy uses tools with negligent reckless and safeties off, then wants to sue the tool vendor for the tool slipping and cut his finger off?

I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not their lawyer, but if I had to defend their position, there can be made an argument that logo (that mostly just says "ONLYOFFICE" with a small image) is just the author attribution - and the AGPL does not explicitly specify whether the authorship attribution requirement might require a specific format for the attribution. But earlier in this thread Excelcia cited OnlyOffice as using the required legal notices as justification, and to me that's an obviously unjustified overreach.

But I think the broader point while admittedly weakened still stands - there is definitely at least some nuance here, even if once all nuances are considered, the conclusion is still the same - and it is disingenuous to imply that the CEO would have known he is obviously wrong if he just read enough of the license to realize it disallows all additional restrictions, period. Seems misleading to do that without first engaging with and acknowledging the nuance.

Interesting, did not see that. So that are claiming the logo is a legal notice, not an attribution? That seems to me like a much more obvious overreach than when I thought they were [ab]using the permission to require attribution.

To respond to the actual point - requiring an authorship notice is clearly allowed. Requiring that it be in a specific graphical form - seems to me like way too far. But I also did not like how FSF dismissed it as completely disallowed, without any acknowledgement that a less onerous/ less specific authorship acknowledgement would have been clearly OK - dudes, you are the ones that included a list of allowed restrictions, do not now act as if it's absolutely preposterous to consider that any restrictions might be OK!

Oops, I think this was a typo or autocorrect error - but I was citing the correct OnlyOffice license.

AGPL:

(emphasis mine)

OpenOffice license includes:

So there is an actual subtle question here - does "original Product logo" count as "reasonable legal notices or author attributions" within the meaning of AGPL 7(b)? But hey, who wants to read when the accused others of no reading?!

I agree that Trump is once again guilty of treason.