Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm well-versed in the terms of Apache 2.0. You are misinterpreting them. The key clause here is that last one: provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License . The entire parts of the code base you didn't modify are still copyrighted by their original authors, and are still subject to the Apache 2.0 license. This is why big tech companies m…
> you can't just fork a project, make, a trivial one-line change, call it a derivative work, and replace the license yes you can "You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications"
Source code is generally copyrighted by its author (or the author's employer, in the case of work for hire). If you wish to use, reproduce, or distribute code that you don't own the copyright of, you need a license to do so, and you must follow the terms of the license.
If you include that work in your own derivative work, and you choose to make your derivative work be open source (which is entirely optional with permissive licenses), then for any unmodified portions of the code you must comply with the original license. This is because you are inherently reproducing and distributing copyrighted source code that you didn't write and don't hold the copyright for. You have no ability to change the license on that unmodified code, as you aren't the copyright holder, the license does not grant you ownership, and you must continue to comply with the original license terms to include that code in your open source repo at all.