coalition of European enterprises and community organizations today have launched Euro-Office, a solution for editing documents, spreadsheets and presentations, developed as a true sovereign community collaboration of over a dozen different organizations.
If they’re the copyright holder, they are allowed to use any license they want. Including a modified AGPL. It’s up to the users to understand what license they’re getting the software under. In this case, it is a modified-AGPL.
This is like Qt when they used the modified GPL (Qt 2-3 era, before they went full LGPL). Qt was the copyright holder and can issue under terms they decide. Then it is up to the users to decide if those terms are acceptable. KDE decided these terms were acceptable, but some other users did not.
However, if a user decided to ignore the additional clauses in Qt and treat it as unmodified GPL, they would have been in violation of the license. Because Qt was the the copyright holder and can dictate terms. Qt would have won the court case. It never happened, so it wasn’t tested, and that’s ancient history now.
But here OnlyOffice is in the same boat. They can dictate the terms, and a court can decide if a user is in adherence of those terms. There’s no part of copyright law that OnlyOffice is violating here.
What will be up for legal debate is whether EuroOffice is willfully and maliciously violating it, or if they just interpreted differently. If the latter, then there will be a great deal of legalese. The real question will be: the AGPL as amended by OnlyOffice – does it permit forking, and are forks subject to the same modified clauses.
I suspect OnlyOffice wins this one if it actually goes to court. Which will be super annoying from an end user perspective.