4 ms·
Just remember that their valuation does not represent their free cash flow, whether they are profitable at all, etc. It could be that open sourcing something ki
by polskibus 5y ago
Just remember that their valuation does not represent their free cash flow, whether they are profitable at all, etc. It could be that open sourcing something kills your profitability in the back, while boosting revenue.
- zokier 5y agoElastic is a public company, the financial information is readily available, so no need to speculate. FY2020 revenue was 430 million, and they spent 220 million on sales and marketing and 165 million on R&D, the total being net loss of 167 million.
- polskibus 5y agoIn this case, it's understandable that they need to improve their profitability, and laudable that they are not doing so by closed sourcing the product.
- thefurrysquid 5y agoIt is not an open source product anymore. Source is available, but this is not the same thing. This is what OSI had to say about it: https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099 "The Elastic projects were offered under the Apache license. Outside contributors donated time and energy with the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good, the public software commons. Now, instead, their contributions are embedded in a proprietary product. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their own and their co-contributors’ labor, they have to agree to a proprietary license or fork." "Elastic’s current business model is inconsistent with what open source licenses are designed to do. Its current business desires are what proprietary licenses (which includes source available) are designed for."