marverenic
commented
5 years ago I'd be concerned about switching Jockey's license — there are a lot of implications around revoking current rights, and I don't want to go down a legal rabbit hole. Regardless, I'm very content with the current Apache license that Jockey uses, and it was a deliberate decision to not use a copyleft license.
The original goal in using this license was so that other people could use what they need, and learn from it. Using a copyleft license can prohibit this in a lot of circumstances where it isn't possible for the derivative work to be open source (for example, if a larger company ended up borrowing code from Jockey or in situations where the derivative work is a paid product). There have been a few instances I'm aware of where individuals have created low-effort variations of Jockey (sometimes for profit), and I'm not a fan of those. But for forks like YMusic where the changes are non-trivial and there's attribution to Jockey, I'm happy to see them — it shows that Jockey has been helpful to others, and I would argue that not all of the changes belong upstream.
I also feel like I should call out profiting in particular. The goal with Jockey was never to make money, and there are no sources of revenue whatsoever — it was entirely for fun and to fill a gap in what I wanted from other music players. That said, it's indirectly given me a paycheck since it opened the door to my current job, and I don't foresee Jockey gaining a revenue stream in the future. For anybody that forks Jockey, the decision to monetize their work is on them — and I don't feel entitled to anything they make, though an occasional PR is always appreciated 😉.
(I also don't mean to be calling out the author of YMusic, by the way. He has contributed back to Jockey, and you can see his contributions here)
I found your project linked from YMusic player page, saying that they closed-source app is a fork of your source code. It seems to me that they simply took your code, added a few features, re branded it and are now profiting from it without contributing back in any way. Am I correct?
If that is the case, have you considered using a copyleft license? Because in my opinion the Apache license allows this kind of privative behaviours against the spirit of open source.