Repository navigation
Clarify EULA and Background Sync provenance in TypeScript 5.9.3 third-party notices #65096
Description
For the npm typescript@5.9.3 package (registry SHA-1
5b4f59e15310ab17a216f5d6cf53ee476ede670f), could you clarify two entries in
ThirdPartyNoticeText.txt?
- The DefinitelyTyped paragraph at line 10 refers to an EULA for a Microsoft
product. Does any additional EULA apply to this material in the npm package?
If so, please identify the EULA/version and covered files. Otherwise, can you
confirm that the wording is stale or inapplicable and should be corrected? - The Web Background Synchronization entry includes a W3C Community Final
Specification Agreement requiring specification name/version attribution.
Which report/version and derived files does this entry cover? Which license
applies to those files? If no relevant material remains in this package,
can you confirm that the FSA entry is stale?
Context for the second question:
- Commit 2435213
added the entry in June 2018 and changed only the notice file - A search of the pinned npm archive found the tested Background Sync identifiers
only in the notice; issue 54509
discusses the absence of those APIs, but does not resolve the notice's provenance - Background Sync's historical LICENSE.md
grants the W3C Software and Document License for reports and references CLA
contributions; it predates TypeScript's FSA entry
We are retaining the complete supplied notices. We are seeking the exact source
and applicable terms, without inferring that the entries can be deleted merely
because the named API is absent.
Reacted by Martin Johns and snarbles2
Activity
RyanCavanaugh commentedon Nov 2, 2026
I can't tell which part of that very long line you're referring to.
Who's requiring what, where?
beefstew commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Thanks, Ryan — sorry the references were imprecise. Both are in the notice shipped with
typescript@5.9.3.DefinitelyTyped: In line 10, the sentence about Microsoft licensing the third-party code ends: “under the terms set forth in the EULA for the Microsoft Product.”
Does an additional Microsoft EULA apply to that material in the npm distribution, or is this product-specific boilerplate that does not apply there?
Background Sync: I meant §2.2 of the FSA reproduced in lines 124–126. It conditions the signatory copyright holder’s grant on attribution in derivative works based on the specification, then says: “That attribution must include, at minimum, the Specification name and version number.”
I should have made that scope explicit: I am not claiming that merely using TypeScript triggers this condition. Which Background Sync report/version does this entry refer to, and does the npm package contain material to which that condition applies? If the entry is historical and no such material remains, that would also answer the question.
RyanCavanaugh commentedon Nov 2, 2026
I don't have authoritative answers off the top of my head for those questions. I can forward to our Legal to ask, but they'll likely ask what you're trying to determine before giving an answer.
beefstew commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Understood, thanks; maybe I'll just make-do with available information. I'm just trying to be a good citizen; I unleashed AI with ORT on an app that I'm writing and this is one two unresolved license compliance questions that came up.