In a blog post, OnlyOffice publicly expresses its anger. Euro-Office is using technology derived from OnlyOffice in violation of license terms and international intellectual property law. OnlyOffice is subject to the AGPL-v3 license and imposes further conditions to ensure transparency and appropriate source attribution. According to OnlyOffice, these include retaining the OnlyOffice trademarks in derivative works, providing appropriate source attribution to the original technology, and fully complying with open-source requirements for distributing the software.
Yes, but the immovability of *GPL licenses is what protects the projects from exploitation. OO put an addition to that license that the name is part of the copyrighted thing. So if for whatever reason the work done by NC is not being merged into upstream, or is not being fast enough, there should be two OO. One from OO and a fork from NC. If the code-bases drift apart, well, now we have two incompatible OnlyOffices. In that case those additions might have been a dumb idea. But I think we can’t afford to have exceptions from enforceability of the license