Is VS Code Free for Commercial Use? A Clear Answer

This question comes up constantly, usually from a developer at a company whose legal or procurement team has asked, in writing, whether VS Code is licensed for business use. It is a fair thing to check. Plenty of free tools are only free for personal or non commercial use and quietly require a paid license the moment a company touches them. VS Code is not one of them, but the reason it is safe is worth understanding so you can answer the procurement email with confidence instead of a shrug.

The confusion exists because Microsoft does two things at once. It publishes the editor's source code openly under one of the most permissive licenses in existence, and it also distributes a polished, branded download under its own product terms. Those are two separate legal objects, and someone reading only one of them can come away with the wrong impression. Below I separate them cleanly.

Is VS Code actually free for commercial use?

Yes. Visual Studio Code is free to download and use for any purpose, including commercial and enterprise work, with no seat licenses, no team tier, and no point at which usage converts it into a paid product. Microsoft states plainly that it is free to use. You can ship client work, run it across a thousand developer machines, and never owe a fee.

There is no asterisk on the price. Unlike JetBrains IDEs, which are free for students and open source projects but require a paid subscription for commercial work, VS Code has a single tier and that tier costs nothing. A solo freelancer, a five person agency, and a Fortune 500 are all using the same free editor under the same terms. This is part of why it became the most widely used editor in the world; the Stack Overflow Developer Survey has shown it used by roughly three quarters of respondents for years running.

If you are choosing an editor for a paid project and want a broader comparison rather than just the license question, I covered the field in my roundup of the best JavaScript code editors for 2026. The license is rarely the deciding factor between modern editors, but it is the kind of thing a finance team will ask about before approving a tool, so it helps to have the answer ready.

What license is VS Code released under?

The source code in Microsoft's public microsoft/vscode repository on GitHub is released under the MIT license, one of the most permissive open source licenses there is. The official binary you download from code.visualstudio.com is built from that source but ships under a separate Microsoft product license. Both grant free use; they differ in what else they let you do.

The MIT license is about as liberal as licenses get. It lets you use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and even sell the software, with essentially one condition: keep the copyright notice and the license text intact. If you cloned the microsoft/vscode repo and built the editor yourself from that source, the result is pure MIT licensed software and you could do almost anything with it, including fold it into a commercial product of your own. Several well known editors, Cursor among them, started exactly this way by forking that codebase.

The download at code.visualstudio.com is different. That build is what Microsoft calls VS Code, complete with the Microsoft logo, a marketplace connection, and telemetry, and it carries a Microsoft Software License Terms document rather than the bare MIT text. The key clause for our purposes reads that the software is licensed, not sold, and that you may use it. It is free, but it is not the MIT license; it is Microsoft's own terms wrapped around an MIT licensed core. For day to day commercial coding this distinction changes nothing. It only matters if you intend to redistribute or repackage the editor itself.

So why does everyone say VS Code is open source?

Because the code is open source, the product is not strictly the same thing. The MIT licensed source lives in the open microsoft/vscode repository, but the branded binary Microsoft ships adds proprietary pieces and proprietary terms on top. The accurate phrasing is that VS Code is built on open source, while the official download is a free, partly proprietary product.

This sounds like a contradiction and it is not. Think of it like a recipe versus a meal at a restaurant. The recipe, the source code, is published for anyone to read and cook from under the MIT license. The meal Microsoft serves, the official download, is cooked from that recipe but plated with extras: the Microsoft branding, a connection to the Microsoft Marketplace, and telemetry that reports usage back. Those additions are not in the open recipe, and the plated meal comes with its own house rules.

The practical takeaway is that two true statements coexist. VS Code's source is open and MIT licensed, and the thing most people install is a free but proprietary distribution of it. If a vendor questionnaire asks whether you are using open source software, the honest answer about the standard Microsoft download is nuanced: it is free, built on open source, but the binary itself is under Microsoft's product terms, not an OSI approved open source license.

What about telemetry and the Marketplace terms?

The Microsoft branded build collects usage and crash telemetry by default, which you can disable by setting telemetry.telemetryLevel to off in settings. Separately, the Visual Studio Marketplace has its own terms of use that restrict the official extension gallery to Microsoft's own products, which is the second reason some teams reach for a different build.

Telemetry is the part most privacy conscious teams care about. Out of the box, the official VS Code sends Microsoft anonymized data about which features you use, how the editor performs, and details of any crashes. Microsoft documents this and gives you a single switch to stop it: open settings, search for telemetry, and set the telemetry level to off. That setting turns off both the Microsoft telemetry and the channel that extensions can use to report their own data. For a regulated environment, flipping this and confirming it through your network egress rules is a reasonable step.

The Marketplace is the less obvious constraint. The Visual Studio Marketplace, where extensions are installed from inside the editor, has terms that permit its use only with Microsoft's Visual Studio products. That is the legal basis Microsoft used to block other editors, including VS Codium and at one point some forks, from using the official gallery. It does not affect you when you run the standard Microsoft download, since that is exactly the product the terms cover. It becomes relevant only when you switch to a non Microsoft build, which is the segue to the next section.

When should you use VS Codium instead?

Use VS Codium if you want the editor with zero telemetry and no Microsoft proprietary licensing at all. It is the same source code compiled by the community without Microsoft's branding, telemetry, or product license. The tradeoff is that it uses the Open VSX extension registry rather than the Microsoft Marketplace, so a handful of proprietary extensions are missing.

VS Codium exists to answer one specific objection: that the official download, despite being free, is still a proprietary build that phones home. VS Codium takes the same MIT licensed microsoft/vscode source and runs Microsoft's own build scripts with the telemetry and branding stripped out, producing binaries that are themselves MIT licensed. Functionally it is VS Code; the interface, keybindings, and settings are identical, and you can usually move your config across without noticing. For an organization that wants to certify a fully open toolchain, it removes the proprietary binary and the default telemetry in one move.

The cost of that purity is the extension ecosystem. Because the Marketplace terms forbid non Microsoft products from using the official gallery, VS Codium ships pointed at Open VSX, a community run registry. Most popular open source extensions are on Open VSX, but some Microsoft owned ones are not, the proprietary C/C++ debugger, the official Python and remote development extensions, and the official GitHub Copilot extension being the usual sticking points. If your workflow depends on those, the standard download with telemetry disabled is the pragmatic choice. If it does not, VS Codium gives you a cleaner license story.

• Choose the official VS Code if you need Microsoft's proprietary extensions like the official Python tools, the C/C++ debugger, Remote SSH, or Copilot, and you are comfortable turning telemetry off yourself.
• Choose VS Codium if you want no telemetry by default, an MIT licensed binary, and you mostly use open source extensions available on Open VSX.
• Choose a fork like Cursor if you want the same base editor rebuilt around AI features; I compare that path in VS Code vs Cursor, and note that those forks carry their own, often paid, licensing.

Is it worth switching to VS Codium for most teams?

For most teams, no. The official VS Code is free for commercial use, and disabling telemetry is a single setting, so the practical gap between it and VS Codium is small. VS Codium earns its keep in environments with strict open source mandates or hard no telemetry policies; for everyone else the extension friction usually outweighs the benefit.

I want to be honest here rather than push the more ideologically pure option. The original question was whether VS Code is free for commercial use, and the answer is a clean yes, which means switching tools to avoid a licensing problem solves a problem you do not have. The only real reasons to move to VS Codium are a policy that forbids proprietary binaries, a policy that forbids any outbound telemetry you cannot fully audit, or a personal preference for a build that is open all the way down. Those are legitimate, but they are specific.

If none of those describe you, install the official build, set the telemetry level to off if your team cares, and move on. The hours you would spend reconciling missing extensions and a different marketplace are better spent on the actual product you are building. When a client hands me a project, the editor licensing is a five minute check, not a migration; the work that earns the invoice is the site or app, which is what my web development services are actually for.

Related Internal Links

Use these to compare editors and to connect the tooling question to the development work it supports.

FAQ