When we talk about software, it’s easy to get caught up in the nuances of different licensing terms. But what does it really mean when a company claims to be ‘free and open source’? A recent experience with Positron IDE got me thinking about this.
The Open Source Definition (OSD) is clear: open source means that the software is freely available, modifiable, and distributable. But what about ‘free’? In this context, ‘free’ doesn’t mean ‘free beer’; it means ‘libre’ – freedom to use and modify the software as you see fit.
So, what’s the issue with Positron IDE? On their website, they proudly claim to be ‘free and open source’, but a closer look reveals that they’re using the Elastic License 2.0 – which, by OSD standards, doesn’t qualify as open source. Instead, it’s ‘source available’, meaning you can view the code, but you don’t have the same freedoms as with true open-source software.
It’s not all bad, though. Positron’s GitHub README does correctly label their software as ‘source available’. And with 109 forks, it’s clear that the community is engaged. But the discrepancy between their website and GitHub raises questions about transparency and accuracy in labeling.
Clarifying the Terms
- Open Source: Meets the Open Source Definition (OSD) and provides freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software.
- Source Available: You can view the code, but it may not meet OSD standards, and you may not have the same freedoms as with open-source software.
- Free: In the context of software, ‘free’ means ‘libre’ – freedom to use and modify the software as you see fit.
The Importance of Clarity
In an era where software licensing can be complex, it’s crucial that companies are transparent and accurate in their labeling. This helps maintain trust with their users and ensures that everyone is on the same page.
So, let’s be clear: ‘free’, ‘open source’, and ‘source available’ are not interchangeable terms. By understanding the differences, we can better navigate the world of software licensing and make informed choices.