16
Does the AGPL license allows not disclosing the source of third party scripts (in)directly interacting with the main software? (lemmybefree.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmybefree.net/post/1201042

Let's say I use some AGPL software like Mastodon or Gitea. If I write a script to interact with some elements, like a nodejs script that interacts with the messages posted to act as an antispam, is it considered derivative work?

If I use a custom theme, does it have to be AGPL? If I add an overlay over the interface or interact with Mastodon through JS, does it have to be AGPL?

For Gitea, if I make a script to scrap some visual elements and send it by email to some people, does it have to be AGPL?

For an email software like Mailcow, if I write an antispam script that communicates with Mailcow's API, does it have to be AGPL?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Using an interface via something like HTTP is unlikely to be considered a derivative work or be bound by that server code's licenses (though there may still be other license agreements for end users of that service, ToS, etc - very, very unlikely if you're self hosting open source code), but if you're linking to an AGPL client library that connects to that API, you may be bound by the terms of the AGPL license.

In all cases, copyright generally only applies to distribution. If you do not distribute any code or software, you are most likely fine.

(Overusing "likely" because 1. not a lawyer and 2. copyright law is really complicated and mostly up to both jurisdiction and the judge)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    In all cases, copyright generally only applies to distribution. If you do not distribute any code or software, you are most likely fine.

    With AGPL, if people use the derivative work over the web, you have to provide the source and document the modifications that were made

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's for deployed services that others are using.

    Either way, "generally" was the important word there. Every license is different, some licenses and parts of licenses are invalid in some jurisdictions, and the interpretation of the license by the judge, licensor, and licensee can affect a judgement on whether something is infringing or fair use.

    If you have questions about licensing for your specific situation and AGPL's plain text doesn't answer it for you (it's not just legalese, it's pretty readable), then talk to a lawyer who specializes in copyright for your jurisdiction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago*

    That’s for deployed services that others are using.

    What I meant to say is that it's a public mastodon, gitea, mailcow instance

    then talk to a lawyer who specializes in copyright for your jurisdiction

    It would be a nice answer, but I'm not going to if I'm not going to make money with the projects. I can't justify this spending

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent