[kube-system]

That's about adding permissions -- not adding restrictions. There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F, and then the statement:

> 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.

[zokier]

> There are a list of allowed restrictions in section 7, lettered A-F

OnlyOffice claims that their restrictions fall under the items b) and e)

[kube-system]

Yeah, b) does provide for attribution, which could be a valid claim here. But b) does not prohibit rebranding, nor does it require the use of branding to be used in any trade capacity as described under e).

Referring to a brand in the capacity of providing attribution is entirely different than using a brand in the capacity of trade. Attributing someone is not the same as using their trademark. Ever write a "works cited" at the end of a report in school? They aren't full of logos, they don't imply that you are the author, (they state the opposite) and they certainly don't violate any trade laws. They are literally just lists of attributions.

e.g. "This software is copyright OnlyOffice", or similar, is an attribution that does not violate any trademarks. It satisfies both b) and e). (although I will note that the license says "or" for each of those, but this probably isn't the intended interpretation)

[cxr]

The FSF just published a whole post on additional restrictions versus additional permissions <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gpl-compliant-legal-noti...>.