> You must follow all license terms, including these extra conditions, to legally use or distribute the software.
Good thing that the license says in section 7: “[…] When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions [“terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions”] from that copy, or from any part of it. […]”
That clause doesn't apply because we're talking about an additional restriction, not an additional permission.
But, same result, because it also says:
> 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.
A restriction stating "you must keep branding" can be ignored. What you can require, is attribution.
> [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.
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.
JDownloader2Setup_windows-amd64_v1_8_0_482.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/5a6636ce490789d7f26aaa86...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-amd64_v11_0_30.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/fb1e3fe4d18927ff82cffb3f...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-amd64_v17_0_18.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/04cb9f0bca6e0e4ed30bc927...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-amd64_v21_0_10.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/32891c0080442bf0a0c5658a...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-x86_v1_8_0_472.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4ff7eec9e69b6008b77de1b6...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-x86_v11_0_29.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/de8b2bdfc61d63585329b8cf...
JDownloader2Setup_windows-x86_v17_0_17.exe: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/e4a20f746b7dd19b8d9601b8...
JDownloader2Setup_unix_nojre.sh: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/6d975c05ef7a164707fa3592...