[License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works

Prashant Shah pshah.mumbai at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 16:39:12 UTC 2013

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 01/02/13 07:28, Ben Reser wrote:
>> No, the license doesn't matter.  If you redistribute a modified file,
>> regardless of how you chose to license your modifications you need to
>> specify that you modified the file.
> Right. And, as you note, this doesn't apply to Apache as they actually
> aren't using their own license as inbound. Except where they are, and
> they ignore this requirement anyway. (Which says something about its
> value and relevance.)

So, having a book-keeping clause is no guarantee that one will follow
it as it is in case of Apache. Also not having a book-keeping clause
doesn't mean that one cannot not follow it - one can if he wants to :)

@Ben it will take me sometime to go though your response.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list