Content is a bandwidth issue. If you need so much bandwidth for a flat, planar 4k stream, how many more do you need for a 100 planes (still pretty flat IMHO) for depth ? Or 1000 planes ?
Maybe it can explode with Gaussian Splats, since it's a convenient way to save a volumetric scene, but, until now, no one made a Gaussian Splats video, so I wonder the bandwidth and processing power required for these too.
I'm not 100% sure it's not possible. If (I don't know) it's possible to freeze the temperature of the model so it's deterministic, and if you could make a map of produced words back to tokens (via HMM probably), then you can probably alter a minimal input and observe the output to model it. If you perform waves of such minimal alterations, you can expect to be able to locate the distance where each alteration impact the model (the idea being that a small alteration on output is likely due to the last layers of the models, and a small alteration is likely due to the deeper layer). Once you've located most of the last layer(s?) weights, you can try to solve for them. With a hundreds of billions weights model, the last layers will likely be so huge that it's probably unfeasible technically, but it's theoretically possible.
That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.
No, logos and trademarks are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions". It's simply not what those words mean. A "legal notice" is some sort of legally relevant document. An "author attribution" is a plaintext recognition of the original copyright holder.
If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means.
> [you may] supplement the terms of this License with terms:
>
>[...]
>
> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
> author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
> Notices displayed by works containing it; or
>
> c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
> requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
> reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
>
> d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
> authors of the material; or
>
> e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
> trade names, trademarks, or service marks;
So the requirement of branding and attribution aren't "further restriction" (which, in this context, means a restriction that is not in the AGPLv3 license text). It's after section 7's list of allowed restrictions, which, paragraph b, contains "require preservation of [...] legal notices or [...] attributions", paragraph d is made to prevent misuse of the original author reputation, and paragraph e to prevent misuse of trademarks, so they, IMHO, are all legitimate.
The branding requirement is a further restriction because that isn’t one of the permitted changes by 7(b) - it is neither an author attribution nor a ALN.
This is bullshit. Read section 7 paragraph b of the AGPLv3 license, and you'll see that OnlyOffice did what they were allowed to do. The Nextcloud blog here is spreading FUD on their partner which will likely cause more damage to them if OO's lawyer starts to have a look on this. People don't read license text, but they should, because they think AGPL is like GPL which is not the case, they are additional restrictions to the former.
I think you're claiming wrong stuff here. AGPLv3 section 7 paragraph b) expressively authorize the author to require an attribution in the derived work or copy. What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution, so they actually mooted their own right to use the code under that license. There's nothing related to trademark or branding violation here. If OnlyOffice attacked Nextcloud for using their TM or brand for respecting the license, they would be debunked at a trial (if it even reach a trial), since they expressively allowed the use of the attribution in distributing their work with this license. Note: This license doesn't give you the right to use the branding of OnlyOffice on a derived product and claim it's yours or you're acting as them, that's a complete different usage case here.
> you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program
I understand "retain" in the way that you have to display the logo anywhere where the original OnlyOffice displays it. So I think you actually have to "use the branding of OnlyOffice".
----
> What Nextcloud did was to remove this attribution
Did they? If including the logo anywhere counts as attribution, I don't think they did. The logo is still present in several places:
AGPL allows for compatibility with a requirement for attribution but it doesn’t not allow (and explicitly says people can ignore) any further requirements beyond that.
A copyright attribution is e.g: “Copyright 2026 kube-system”. Attribution does not mean the same thing as “logo” or “branding”
The OnlyOffice license is ultimately a terrible crayon license. Those two requirements they wrote in are self contradictory… in consecutive sentences even. I kind of doubt that any court is gonna take that super seriously. It seems to be intentionally misleading or malicious, which is frowned upon.
> Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks.
> Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software.
IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.
They’re mistakenly conflating “attribution” with “branding” or “trademark”. They’re different things. In the context of a copyright license, attribution is something like “// Copyright 2012 <whoever> Corporation” that you might see in a source file.
This use doesn’t violate trademark because you aren’t pretending to be them, you are attributing them as the source. Just like I can say “the Big Mac is a sandwich at McDonalds” and my comment is completely legal.
Even if “attribution” didn’t already mean something different — this reading of the AGPL is laughably stupid — first of all, you can’t compel someone to break the law in a contract anyway... and second, that’s an illogical interpretation of that section. Why would it be intentionally self contradictory? Clearly that isn’t right.
Requiring specific branding is not provided for in 7 § 3(b) and it is specifically forbidden by the the sentences that immediately follow:
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
What they should do is make sure they keep all attribution in source files and tell them to pound sand about their bogus branding claims.
You're right, the branding claim here is BS but attribution requirements are legit. I only took a cursory glance at their repo, but I don't see any copyright notices for OnlyOffice in EuroOffice. There should be.
I think you're confused by the term "permissions". You can give more freedom to the license and a copier can remove them as long as it doesn't remove the freedom that are in AGPLv3. The OnlyOffice team claim comes from the next paragraph of section 7:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may [...] supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
This is what they did and what the other part stripped from their blatant copy. So no, removing the logo or the OnlyOffice terms therefore seems forbidden by the license itself, revoking it for the other part, thus they are now making a counterfeit.
“Making exceptions to conditions” and “adding additional conditions” are literally opposed concepts, and the AGPL explicitly distinguishes between “additional permissions” and “further restrictions”. So, were OpenOffice bound by the original license without its additions, that would be problematic.
Author attribution, legally, doesn't refer to brands or logos. They're different things... e.g. the difference between [the disney logo] and "Copyright 2026 The Walt Disney Company"
Since there's a single provider of this "specification", which is more or less Google, why even bother calling it a standard? Even more that Google's implementation is not following the published standard, breaking potential competing implementation in so many subtle ways.
