A very interesting court case has appeared in Russia! It is about usage of third-party open source software to create another one, and how their licenses and scope of their modification really affect on the chances to include the created software (based on them) in the registry of Russian software.

This case is related to Basalt SPO LLC and their attempt to include their Free Office software in this registry. Let’s go!

And first of all, let me provide a short list of mentioned entities, software and documents for easier understanding, what the court decision was about.

Mentioned entities

• Court - a Russian court (Arbitration Court of Moscow) which decision is the subject of quick review in this post.
• Basalt SPO - a Russian software developer (Basalt SPO LLC), locally well-known for its Linux-based operating system. They create a Free Office software (an office software suite, called “Свободный офис” in Russian).
• Ministry (the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation) - the state agency responsible (among other duties) for the administering of the Register.
• Expert Council- a standing consultative and expert body (Expert Council on Software) related to the Ministry which responsible for reviewing applications (submitted by software owners) on the inclusion of software in the Register.

Mentioned documents

• Court decision - a decision issued by the Arbitration Court of Moscow that is a subject of the review here (a court case number А40-139047/2026).
• Expert Council decision - the decision issued by the Expert Council on rejection Basalt SPO application to include its Free Office in the Register.
• GOST - the state standard (a kind of by-law acts issued by corresponding state agency aimed to unifying certain technical provisions and measures) called GOST 19.101-2024 "Unified system of software documentation. Types of programs and program documents", introduced by the order of corresponding state agency.
• Protocol - a protocol issued by the Expert Council as of 15.04.2026 N 302пр., in accordance of which Basalt SPO’s sofware application (on the including in the Register) was rejected.
• Register - the list of software and databases (administered by the Ministry) created by corresponding developers (who met the requirements of the Rules) and included herein after their adoption by the Expert Council.
• Rules - the Rules issued by the Russian Government on the order and conditions of including software and databases in the Register.

Mentioned software

• Free Office - a software (office suit) developed by Basalt SPO and which it tried to include in the contents of the Register.
• LibreOffice - a well-known open sourced office suite, used by Basalt SPO to create Free Office, its core part.
• Thunderbird - mail software used by Basalt SPO to develop Free Software, its another part.
• Surguch - a software developed by Basalt SPO related to electronic signatures, also a part of Free Office.
• Qt/KDE - a well-known open source GUI software, integrated within Free Office.

A set of key preliminary facts

(in a brief)

1. Basalt SPO has developed Free Office software and filed an application to the Ministry to include it in the Register. The Expert Council has reviewed the content of this application and supporting materials, and the Ministry refused it (the details are in the Protocol).
2. After that, Basalt SPO tried to appeal this refusal in a court, and filed a corresponding claim against the Ministry (case number is А40-139047/2026).
3. On the previous week, on October 7th, 2026 the Arbitration Court of Moscow decided that the Expert Council arguments were right, and the Ministry lawfully rejected Basalt SPO application. So, the claims were denied in full.
4. Now the litigation is still open, Basalt SPO has a time to appeal.

What facts the court has established

1. The Rules sets the requirements, compliance with which is mandatory for the inclusion in the Register, in part:
   a) the exclusive right to the Software throughout the world and for the entire term of the exclusive right belongs to corresponding right holders;
   b) there are no restrictions, established including by foreign states, that hinder the distribution or other use of the computer program in Russia;
   c) the software does not have forced updates or management from abroad.
2. The Ministry's decided to refuse due to the non-compliance of the "Free Office" software:
   a) Basalt SPO is not the owner of the programs (components) included in Free Office;
   b) Basalt SPO does not comply with the terms of use of programs (components) included in Free Office;
   c) as part of Free Office, its components send requests to foreign servers upon launch;
   d) Free Office does not comply with the software classes specified in the application.
3. FreeOffice consists of 7 independent programs. 5 out of 7 programs are third-party developments and are used by Basalt SPO under an open license. Each of them allows the use of the program through reproduction or modification, but imposes significant restrictions on the commercialization of the resulting software, including making it impossible to conclude paid license agreements and requiring the disclosure of the software's source code ("viral" licenses).
4. The main functionality of Free Office is performed by LibreOffice. This software package also includes Thunderbird, Surguch. The following changes were made to the LibreOffice software:
   a) interface localization has been completed (translations are regularly sent to upstream);
   b) added Russians dictionaries Hunspell with support letters «ё»;
   c) added integration with Qt/KDE graphical environments, allowing the use of KDE Plasma environment's graphical libraries in the design of LibreOffice suite applications, both in the 10th and 11th branches of ALT OS;
   d) an integration plugin for Alt-csp-cryptopro has been developed for document signing electronic signature.

What are the key conclusions of the court

1. A feature of "viral" licenses is the obligation to distribute modifications of the program under the same terms as the original program was distributed. In other words, the use of software code distributed under "viral" licenses is permissible, subject to certain restrictions related to the freedom of the developer to define the licensing terms for the software product created using it.
2. Under to the Rules, software is a program for electronic computing machines and databases. A program is mentioned in the singular form. In this regard, a literal interpretation of the Rules implies that the Rules apply to each software product that is part of the software suite. Considering the foregoing, for the purposes of inclusion in the Register, Free Office both as a whole and each program that is its component must belong to Basalt SPO.
3. This interpretation fully complies with both the objectives of the Registry's creation and the state standards. Under the GOST, the following types of programs are distinguished:
   a) software component - a program, considered as a whole, performing a complete function;
   b) software package - a program consisting of two or more software components and/or software sets that perform interconnected functions;
   c) software suite - a set of computer programs performing unrelated or not directly related functions.
4. The key difference between a software package and a software suite is whether the programs included in it are aimed at solving interconnected functions or not, including whether they belong to the same class.
5. The functionality of the programs within Free Office software package is not directly related, which is confirmed by the fact that each of the specified programs, if independently included in the Register, would fall under a separate class.
6. Free Office software suite is a collection of programs, each of which must comply with the Rules.
7. The use of software distributed under open licenses in software development is not prohibited by the Rules. However, such use is a reason for not including in the Register software that is a collection of unchanged (or practically unchanged) third-party programs distributed under open licenses. Otherwise, if the copyright holder of any of these programs changes the license terms or terminates the license agreement, then further use of the entire software package will be deemed unlawful (due to the art. 1260 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
8. The ownership of rights to the compilation as a whole (as a result of compilation) contrary to the arguments of Basalt SPO does not allow recognizing such software as compliant with the requirements of the Rules.
9. It does not follow that Basalt SPO either reworked third-party software (including LibreOffice, Thunderbird, and other software), or documented the fact of making significant changes to them, or created Open Office using such derivative works. But, LibreOffice was included in Free Office without any significant changes.
10. Based on the results of studying Basalt SPO materials (to include Free Office in the Register), the Expert Council concluded that mentioned changes [of the mentioned third party software] are insufficient for the LibreOffice modification. This conclusion was fully confirmed by Basalt SPO itself. Thus, LibreOffice is a third-party product and is used as part of Free Office in an almost unchanged form.
11. Basalt SPO does not have exclusive rights to the LibreOffice, which prevents the inclusion of Free Office in the Register.

My quick thoughts on what I’ve read in the court decision

1. Obviously, it is a very interesting court case for a number of reasons. First, there are few court cases in Russia related to open sourced code and licenses that are under the court review. And each of them is potentially valuable for the developers, lawyers, and investors. Secondly, current legislation (the Russian Civil Code) does not provide clear answer what are the scope of modification should be done to create a real derivative software and get a proper title on it.
2. This is not a case on a violation of copyright, nor a plagiarism. It is about the Rules, the Russian Civil Code, and provisional barriers to developers on their path to include their software in the Register.
3. Is it important, that the court has provided its conclusions in respect to the feature of "viral" licenses, types of computer programs and differences between them, the main functionality of the reviewed software.
4. This case is potentially remarkable in respect to third-party open sourced components as the threaten factor to include a software in the Register, the scope of necessary modification of them for such purposes.
5. This case is still open. Basalt SPO did not last all chances to won this dispute, and has a time to appeal. Nevertheless, the developer’s chances are uncertain.