AGPLv3§74 Empowers Users to Thwart Badgeware Like OnlyOffice

AGPLv3§7¶4 Empowers Users to Thwart Badgeware by Bradley M. Kühn on April 16, 2026 This article discusses a current-headlines situation regarding Affero General Public License, version 3, Section 3, paragraph 4 (AGPLv3§7¶4.). I begin however with an explanation of the problem that clause sought to solve and how the clause works. This may seem an estoric license issue, but in fact this issue regularly impacts users today — particularly with the advent of “badgeware” (software that allows redistribution but includes annoying advertising that cannot be removed). Hopefully, this explanation helps readers understand the importance of the issue and gain vigilance when reviewing potential “further restrictions” placed on their copylefted software. The Self-Contradictory License Problem under GPLv2 I began my work in copyleft licensing and policy in the late 1990s. In those days, there was a growing problem regarding usage of the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2) that threatened the software freedom and rights of users. It's a nefarious licensing slight-of-hand that works as follows: The vendor seems to offer the software under a copyleft license. There's a copy of GPLv2 in the top-level directory of the source code in a file called GPLv2. All seems in order, and folks excitedly engage in their right to copy, modify, and install modified versions of the software. Maybe a few even think of a viable business idea that would include (usually permissible) commercial redistribution of the software for profit. Unfortunately, someone notices a file called LICENSE in the top-level directory that says: Copyright (©) 1999, Sneaky Company, Inc. This software is licensed under GPLv2, except that commercial modification and redistribution is strictly prohibited. They've sadly discovered a self-contradictory license. Unfortunately, under GPLv2, these users are basically stuck; they have to go with the strictest possible interpretation given the self-contradiction. In essence, the licensor giveth, but the licensor immediately taketh away. In those days, these users couldn't start their business; they'd have to find or write another codebase. I was tangentially involved with the drafting of GPLv3. On my list of issues to raise with the drafters was this very issue. By the time of GPLv3 drafting (circa 2006), this problem was rampant. Users were quite confused when they saw these self-contradictory licenses. The solution was not obvious. Both GPLv2 and the earliest drafts GPLv3-family of licenses (which includes GPLv3, AGPLv3, and LGPLv3) already had this clause: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein (quoting the GPLv2 version; the GPLv3/AGPLv3 version varies slightly). The problem: this only prevented downstream licensors from imposing further restrictions. If a sole entity is the original author, copyright holder and initial licensor of the work — and if they hold those powers exclusively — typically that entity may issue a self-contradictory (or even completely incoherent) license. In that case, downstream licensees are awash with legal uncertainty. So, that “may not impose” clause just does not solve this particular problem. A Novel Solution A new clause was needed. Later drafts of the GPLv3 (which is almost textually identically to AGPLv3 — only §13 differ between the two licenses) included a fascinating solution in §7¶4: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it,…

This excerpt is published under fair use for community discussion. Read the full article at Software Freedom Conservancy.