this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
20 points (95.5% liked)
Programming
22492 readers
170 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I create a script that interacts with the API it’s not considered a part of the software then?
No, not for something that is over the network
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)
With AGPL, if people use the derivative work over the web, you have to provide the source and document the modifications that were made
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.
What I meant to say is that it's a public mastodon, gitea, mailcow instance
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
AGPL no, GPL maybe.
Unpopular opinion: According to the courts, GPL is nothing but a nice wish.
Why would it with GPL? AGPL is GPL with an added clause
Sorry, you are right, read to quickly and confused AGPL with LGPL.
Writing javascript (or any programming language, but sticking with 'script' here) to consume an http api from an agpl service (such as lemmy or mastodon) does not force you to open source whatever client you have.
Consuming an agpl client library (maybe mastodon or lemmy provide an sdk I dunno, or some third party one) and you embed it in your app and interact with that agpl code, then yes you must open your code up.
For example, there are closed source Mastodon clients that make a lot of money. Look at the mastodon client from tapbots. The owners of mastodon have a winning case if they sued them, if your logic held up. Tapbots can safely create an entire application and consume the mastodon api without worry, why can't you and your script?