Repository navigation
License clarification: which license governs CodeEditLanguages? #94
Description
Hi, and thanks for maintaining CodeEditLanguages — bundling the tree-sitter grammars into a single precompiled xcframework is a genuinely clean way to consume tree-sitter on macOS.
I'd like to depend on this package in a commercial macOS app and want to attribute it correctly, but I can't determine the license for this specific package: there's no LICENSE file in the repo root, and GitHub's license API returns nothing for it. The main CodeEdit app is MIT, but CodeEditLanguages doesn't appear to carry its own license file.
Could you help clarify:
-
What license governs
CodeEditLanguagesitself? Is it intended to be MIT, consistent with the rest of the CodeEdit org? If so, would you consider adding aLICENSEfile to the repo root so it's unambiguous and detectable by tooling (GitHub, SPM, license scanners)? -
Attribution for the bundled grammars — each upstream tree-sitter grammar carries its own license (MIT/Apache-2.0/etc.). Is there an aggregate
NOTICE/attribution you'd recommend bundling, or should consumers attribute each grammar from its upstream repo?
Happy to open a PR adding a LICENSE file (and a grammar NOTICE, if useful) if that would save you time. Thanks again!
Activity
sohei56 commentedon Jul 18, 2026
We're in the same situation: we bundle
CodeEditLanguages(viaCodeEditSourceEditor) in a distributed macOS app, and with noLICENSEfile or README statement we currently have to carry it as
"license unresolved" in our third-party notices.
+1 to adding the org-standard MIT
LICENSEfile to the repo root — thatwould make the grant unambiguous and machine-detectable for downstream
consumers.
For what it's worth, we're also contributing fixes upstream (see
#95), so we'd love to see this resolved.