> The intent for that type of clause is to ensure that nobody can come back to the original author with your modified file and claim that they violated some rul

> The intent for that type of clause is to ensure that nobody can come back to the original author with your modified file and claim that they violated some rule (eg. copied stuff from other-licensed sources, patent law, libel, ...) that you violated in your edits. As usual, there wasn't just one reason. The gist is the "integrity" of the official version of the software. Integrity has a few uses. Earlier licenses with these kinds of requirements were primarily motivated by reputation concerns. For the maintainer of the project, who could be "blamed" for the ill-considered patches of others. For the project as a whole, when unofficial forks failed to interoperate, or included novel bugs. Some of those licenses, notably Artistic, required renaming so as not to compete with the official version in package or PATH namespaces, as well as giving notice of instructions to get back to that official version from the fork, if the end-user desired.