Alternatively, "source available" is a term that's been used to imply the source is there, but it's not "open source" (which led to the Fair Source folks working on their own naming for it, so as some folks have negative views of "source available")
Maybe that was when software binaries could be free but the source was not.
There is also the term "libre" (meaning "free as in freedom") to distinguish it from software that doesn't cost money.
If you've not read up on the background between the two - I'd very much recommend it (and sorry if I'm re-explaining something you understand)
With Free Software, it's "free as in freedom", not "free as in gratis". Free Software is generally a bit more strongly biased towards the users of a piece of software, but as businesses started to use it they were a bit unhappy with that, so Open Source came to reduce that a little bit, making it easier for companies to use it, without as many strong protections for a user
See also [1]
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
