Talk:OnlyOffice

File:152x92 logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:152x92 logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:152x92 logo.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability

I found this article relevant. As Wikipedia has a list of planning softwares, and each one has its own Wikipedia page, I find this software should have its own wikipedia page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.2.35 (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this: Found this article useful - which in the end is what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.74.129 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Telephone directories, cooking recipes and holiday reviews are useful too. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that comparing telephone entries, recipes and holiday reviews maybe valuable for people, consider opening a new article on that, instead of creating comments that themself fall into useful category.62.143.78.224 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think TeamLab is notable and the page should be expanded. Ronmarshalljr (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Improving the article

Can you provide me with some tips on how to improve the article? --Hellonadya (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ONLYOFFICE or OnlyOffice?

Should it be ONLYOFFICE or OnlyOffice? The article is currently inconsistent. --Mortense (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the main website and their Github repos it is correctly  :: ONLYOFFICE --User:Haileyfoxinsa 20:29, 22 November 2020 (SAST)

Article revised

I have revised the article according to warning messages in the banners. How to stimulate the review process so that the changes are checked and the banners are actualized/removed? --Softwaregenius (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviews

OnlyOffice has been reviewed by C'T Magazin.

Review of OnlyOffice in C'T 12/2020 --Dan Oom (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Technology section makes no sense

The technology section makes absolutely no sense. It mentions that the Document server uses the HTML5 canvas element, which a server has no use for (the client for the server sure, but not the server itself). It also states that the Community Server is written in Mono. Mono is not a language and as such, nothing can be written in Mono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.194 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

RTL Issue

The RTL issue is major and should be mentioned in the article. Anyone who can google "ONLYOFFICE RTL" will find many results regarding this unsolved problem. ONLYOFFICE team also does not intend to support RTL anytime soon, if they'll ever will. Anialmoni (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a lot of results in an online search doesn't make this information encyclopedic. This article is already in a bad shape with WP:SPAs pushing advertisement in a lot of language-specific Wikipedias, this one included. --Bugmenot1992 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Note - as of 13/09/2021 there are plans to support RTL (see most recent responses here: https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DocumentServer/issues/19)

Android License

Currently, the Android version is marked as `Freeware` here. According to https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/documents-app-android and https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/documents-app-android/issues/1 , the Android app is open source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasMich.de (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hiding of Russian origin

Several users here persistently try to suppress the fact that OnlyOffice is a Russian product, developed in Russia.

The country is now not even mentioned anymore, but this is important, as OnlyOffice thus falls under EU/US-Sanctions..

See as well:

https://vc.ru/story/1738-teamlab

https://www.epravda.com.ua/publications/2022/07/6/688888/ DuoTandem (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

After analyzing these media sources, I have determined that they cannot be verified because they come from dubious sources and blogs see WP:RSPSOURCES. From the respective source , which is a blog I have identified that the authors of this article are Лариса Каневська, Лілія Каневська, DMS Solutions. As a result as mentioned in the article it is a matter of politics. Tristancr (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

More information about Russian background

Someone might like to add this information to the article.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A07-%D0%9E%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81

https://web.archive.org/web/20240121061747/https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A07-%D0%9E%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%A07-%D0%9E%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en

Quote from Google translate: "P7-Office is a Russian cross-platform application package for collaboration with office documents. Included in the unified register of Russian computer programs and databases. [...] It is a fork of Onlyoffice."

Sometimes it's called "R7" and sometimes "P7". Maybe that comes from the Cyrillic letter "R" being written like a "P". R7-Office seems to be founded by the same person as OnlyOffice.

https://www.collaboraoffice.com/comparing-collabora-with-onlyoffice/#Ownership

2A04:4540:6404:9900:470D:EFF8:42E3:16A5 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

C++ oder C#?

The source code in the given repository is in C#, not C++. --2003:E3:B733:E300:107A:220B:EAD0:A370 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested source

https://www.comnews.ru/content/218317/2022-01-19/2022-w03/otechestvennyy-konkurent-google-workspace-obnovilsya

I am not sure about its reliability, though.

—Janhrach (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Organization

@Oftermart: Regarding , bias in sources doesn't matter. The EPravda article presumably is both independent (the authors' company doesn't have any visible relationship to Ascensio) and reliable (considering it is a normal article, not a blog, and therefore it should have passed at least a basic fact-check). Nothing in WP:PRIMARY seems to prohibit using a primary source here. Janhrach (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fauxpen license

The article talks about OnlyOffice as open-source software and as being licensed with the AGPLv3. This is not exactly accurate. Factually speaking, it is licensed using a license based on the AGPLv3 with additional restrictions about forks not being allowed to remove the trademarked logo. And since Euro-Office emerged, the company has complained about the new project not complying with this license (which is technically impossible to comply with).

One may consider that the license is practically equivalent to AGPLv3, since the restriction could be considered a Further Restriction that the license explicitly allows licensees to remove. Still, OnlyOffice's interpretation seems to be different, so I think it is worth mentioning in the article that the license contains clauses that may or may not be enforceable.

If the clauses were enforceable, then I'm pretty sure the software cannot be considered open-source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquin (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct! OnlyOffice should be labelled as proprietary/source-available only in the article to not mislead people and keep people away from this horrible project.

Sadly, I think the license situation is even more complicated. The issue is not really the enforceability of the restrictions (which are clearly not enforceable under AGPL-3.0) but rather that OnlyOffice is not licensed under AGPL-3.0 at all but only under their ad-hoc proprietary license (the one based on AGPL-3.0). As they seem to not use any third-party (A)GPL components and seem to have made contributors sign a CLA (which is a good reminder to never sign CLAs), they are (form a license perspective) free to use any proprietary license. ~2026-20598-34 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

it is licensed using a license based on the AGPLv3 – I disagree; AGPL allows (see section 7 of the AGPL text) for some specific extra restrictions (e.g. requiring attributions), as long they do not make the software unfree. OnlyOffice makes it clear that they do not modify the license; they invoke section 7.

AFAIK, the text of AGPL is copyrighted, so claiming that OnlyOffice modified the text of the license itself (as opposed to invoking section 7) would be an accusation of copyright infringement. I am generally wary of making strong statements like this.

Of course, AGPL also specifies that extra restrictions that make the software unfree could be removed. This is the crux of the dispute. To be honest, the only clear accusation made in this dispute is that Euro-Office illegally removed the extra restrictions; other accusations by OnlyOffice are quite unclear to me.

OnlyOffice claims that their extra restrictions do not make the software unfree.

Others claim that these extra restrictions are contrary to AGPL, and therefore they could be removed. This would mean that OnlyOffice is actually open-source (against the wishes of its owner).

—Janhrach (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

not in the us according to Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, if the copyright holder themselves adds in contradictory terms then its legal according to 9th district circuit. so if onlyoffice says AGPL but further restriction its legal, it may be a modified agpl but thats for the fsf to duke it out with but legally speaking. Only way is to prove the trademark is under nominal fair use as part of the system like accolade vs sega 1992 Exed1960 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

"Lanham Act was interpreted to mean that confusion resulting from the placement of one's trademark on another work by means of a security program is the fault of the original registrant of the trademark."

Cit. Sega v. Accolade

Since OnlyOffice requires the placement of their trademark on another work by means of a security program or a license thats on them Exed1960 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)