<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Aaron,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
I found an interesting project protected by Apache-2.0 in github.
Now I want to modify some functions and some new features to develop
a new software based on the original project. Naturally I want to
fork it and start my coding, but there is a confusing thing, should
I fulfill the obligation of <b>Redistribute with Modification, </b>especially
the 2.nd term, changelog related.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+yy7fzKckPerewwHLYFZGNBy6ayOrRDCOzoNEbutXGtRbZTbw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<ol
style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:10px;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:"Open
Sans",sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(252,252,252)">
<li
style="box-sizing:border-box;list-style-type:decimal">You
must give any other recipients of the Work or
Derivative Works a copy of this License; and</li>
<li
style="box-sizing:border-box;list-style-type:decimal"><u>You
must cause any modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that You changed the files; and</u></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is an interesting question.</p>
<p>Firstly, yes, assuming that you're using the GitHub's free
service for F/OSS projects, a condition of use of that service is
that you're willing to distribute every revision of your code
meaning that the fork and any changes to it are immediately
distributed by virtue of their being hosted with GitHub's free
service.<br>
</p>
<p>Strictly speaking therefore, the first thing that you should do
upon creating a fork is to meet any labelling requirements in the
associated license.</p>
<p>Taking a step back to look at impact, I understand the intended
purpose of that particular clause (and similar clauses in other
licenses) to be to avoid confusion about the identity and origin
of a particular copy of a piece of source code. I'd suggest that
there's very little risk of confusion in the case that you're
describing in that the forked version is generally either a
personal tweak (which you won't be promoting) or a precursor to an
upstream pull request. Neither case creates any material risk of
confusion about origin and, in any case, is hosted in a personal
name space which will usually remove all doubt. This suggests that
the many thousands of forks sitting in personal-but-public GitHub
repositories that haven't met this obligation are nonetheless not
creating a material problem.<br>
</p>
<p>Obviously if you go on to promote the work as a separate project
then it would be very important to deal with those obligations,
and probably rename the project, replace branding, etc.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>- Roland</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>