I haven't quite grasped the implications of forking a licensed project to public.I am assuming that a similar license should be kept, but what happens if that's not possible?EditI am providing an example (as suggested by Michael Schumacher in the comments):Font Awesome is under the SIL OFL 1.1 license. If one is to fork it in order to extend or modify the font glyphs and thus modifying the font files, would the forked project be under the same license through a DerivativeRenaming clause? How should it be phrased in order to keep complying with this license?Or, since the license seems to specifically refer the owner in its usage terms, would this usage still be appropriate?Already forked projects, such as font-awesome-rails, refer to the exact same license, but I found none that actually altered the actual fonts, therein lies my question.
When does a forked project require a license?
licensing;license compatibility;forking