

They seem to have a questionable interpretation of the AGPL https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/onlyoffice/
Considering the specific clause they cite allows
Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it
A logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.


















I’m sceptical tbh, their interpretation of the AGPL seems questionable. The specific wording in the AGPL they’re relying on for their logo preservation term is:
IMO a logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.