The Apache License requires:
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
- You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
Suppose I want to contribute to some AL2-licensed project on GitHub. I create a fork of their repository, so I'm distributing a copy. Then I modify said files, turning the plain copy into an derivative work with modified files. But usually I only include relevant code changes as I intend for my modifiecations to be merged into the upstream project after some code review. I don't add a notice about “I modified this file” to each of them. How does this agree with the license?
Is the git log enough of a “prominent notice” to satisfy this requirement, even if the information isn't included in the text of each affected file, and even if GitHub allows downloading the code as a ZIP without history information?
I don't see my personal fork as a Derivative Work, but instead as a proposed contribution to the original Work. Is this distinction of any legal significance?
Do the GitHub terms of service somehow address this scenario? I couldn't find anything that sounds like it would apply here.
Is there anything else to prevent me from getting sued by an upstream developer, apart from that developer using common sense?