![]() ![]() The built version released under Microsoft's EULA, then, is a specific configuration of the open source code base. Therefore, you generate a "clean" build, without the Microsoft customizations, which is by default licensed under the MIT license When you clone and build from the vscode repo, none of these endpoints are configured in the default product.json. We clone the vscode repository, we lay down a customized product.json that has Microsoft specific functionality (telemetry, gallery, logo, etc.), and then produce a build that we release under our license. When we build Visual Studio Code, we do exactly this. This file controls things like the Gallery endpoints, “Send-a-Smile” endpoints, telemetry endpoints, logos, names, and more. When you build from the vscode repository, you can configure the resulting tool by customizing the product.json file. We build on top of the vscode code base we just open sourced and we release it under a standard, pre-release Microsoft license. ![]() We then follow a similar model for Visual Studio Code. For example, Chrome is built on Chromium, the Oracle JDK is built from OpenJDK Those branded products come with their own custom license terms, but are built on top of a code base that’s been open sourced. We observed a number of branded products being released under a custom product license, while making the underlying source code available to the community under an open source license. We wanted to deliver a Microsoft branded product, built on top of an open source code base that the community could explore and contribute to. When we set out to open source our code base, we looked for common practices to emulate for our scenario. In that issue, a vscode developer explains: To learn why Visual Studio Code, the product, has a different license than vscode, the open source GitHub repository, see issue #60 for a detailed explanation. Why does Visual Studio Code have a different license than the vscode GitHub repository? This is explicitly addressed in the Visual Studio Code FAQ: Is it appropriate (within the norms of the open source community) for Microsoft to brand their proprietary-licensed binary as "Open Source" since it is based on a fully-buildable open source code base? Is there a well-known business reason why Microsoft would offer the binary and source under such vastly different licenses? It could be possible that I'm not understanding something here, but I was surprised to know VS code had different license for product and scource. I quickly looked up a couple of popular open source editors to find that they are released under one MIT license (Product and sc).Ītom is MIT licensed and the source is freely available from the atom/atom repository.īrackets is released under the MIT License It seems that the product is released under a different license and the source code is published under MIT license. ![]() In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. I have been using MS VS Code since a while now and I am I really loving it.Īlthough the other day I was having a discussion regarding editors with my mentor where he pointed to me this. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |