From e8cc65b3d12bb08542a7eb392aad023635388e3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wagyourtail Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 20:27:09 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] remove assertive language --- README.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 3f3bbc21..a8289e94 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ The class version can be replaced with a path to the pre-downgraded api jar to s Some people think that shading would mean they're bound by the stricter GPL license. I don't belive this to be the case. -For the purpose of Licensing, the produced jar from this task should be considered a "Combined Work", +For the purpose of Licensing, the produced jar from this task, or the downgrading task, should be considered a "Combined Work", as it contains the original code from the input jar and the shaded code from jvmdowngrader's api. -And this does mean that you shouldn't need to use the *exact* same license, as long as you comply with section 4 of the LGPL. +And this does, usually, mean that you shouldn't need to use the *exact* same license. Running this tool, should be a thing the end-user is capable of doing, thus section 6.a should be satisfied as long as -your project provides the pre-shaded jar as well, or alternatively provides source code to build said jar, or the post-shaded jar. +your project provides the unshaded/undowngraded jar as well, or alternatively provides source code to build said jar, or the post-shaded jar. ## Runtime Downgrading