project/ecd.theia/vscode/extensions-allAcrossExtensionHosts-cq/1.70.2

Project: Eclipse Theia

In order to maintain compatibility with vscode extensions, Eclipse Theia requires stubbed support for proposed vscode extensions.allAcrossExtensionHosts and related APIs. To implement the stub, we copied the API definition from the vscode repo, file /src/vscode-dts/vscode.proposed.extensionsAny.d.ts (tag 1.70.2). The copied file is included as an attachment, in its original folder path.

Theia PR that makes use of this content: https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia/pull/12277

Basic Information

• License: MIT
• Copyright Holder: Microsoft
• Git repository
• Binary
• Source

vscode-1.70.2.tar.gz

added Under Review label

This is an automated response.

Scancode Results

Scancode version 31.2.1.

Source: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/uploads/d7a1cf6f5e6e6df33563d5374d82269a/vscode-1.70.2_tar_gz

Source contains 1 files.

Copyright Holders

• Microsoft Corporation

Licenses

The following (potential) licences were identified by the scanner (click to expand/collapse):

MIT (1 files)

• vscode-1.70.2/src/vscode-dts/vscode.proposed.extensionsAny.d.ts

License Matches

Expand the header(s) below to see the license information extracted from vscode-1.70.2/src/vscode-dts/vscode.proposed.extensionsAny.d.ts.

MIT

Lines 3 to 3

 *  Licensed under the MIT License. See License.txt in the project root for lice...

added Scancode Results label

mentioned in commit 31124a30

This is an automated response.

Curation information written to info.json

This is an automated response.

The automatic scanner has reviewed this request and has determined that IP Team assistance is required. Your patience is appreciated.

changed due date to March 16, 2023

added IP Team Review Needed label

added Reviewed by Dash label and removed Under Review label

changed the description

@wbeaton Here's a related question raised in the project, whose answer will guide us in the future: is a CQ necessary for such a case, where only API definitions were copied?

This is a great question. Thanks for asking.

First though... I'm really trying to purge the term "CQ" from my brain. I think that we can all agree that this is a noble cause that's worthy of support.

Yes, let's optimise. If it's API definitions, the license is completely clear and compatible, and copyright is unambiguously expressed, just go for it. No review request is required.

If you're not sure or otherwise require assistance, open a review request and we'll work through it with you.

closed

removed IP Team Review Needed label

added Approved label