Posted on 04/10/2006 10:22:06 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Red Hat Signs Definitive Agreement to Acquire JBoss Open source leaders agree to join to drive down the cost of developing and deploying web-enabled applications
RALEIGH, NC - April 10, 2006 - Red Hat (NASDAQ: RHAT), the world's leading provider of open source solutions to the enterprise, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire JBoss, the global leader in open source middleware. By acquiring JBoss, Red Hat expects to accelerate the shift to service-oriented architectures (SOA), by enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform.
"It is at Red Hat's very core to help unlock the power of open source and open communities to innovate across industries, geographies and economies," said Matthew Szulik, Chairman and CEO of Red Hat. "Red Hat and JBoss are fully aligned around the belief that the open source development model continues to change the economics of enterprise IT in favor of the customer, and we truly believe in the potential of software innovation, once freed from the fetters of proprietary development."
Red Hat will acquire JBoss for approximately $350 million in initial consideration, plus approximately $70 million subject to the achievement of certain future performance metrics. The transaction consideration is composed of approximately 40% in cash and 60% in Red Hat common stock. The acquisition is expected to be completed around the end of Red Hat's first fiscal quarter (May 2006), subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approval. The low-cost on-ramp to SOA
The adoption cycle for new technologies is littered with early adopters, who spent millions of dollars subsidizing "new" platform software that never lived-up to the hype. JBoss has shattered that model by providing innovative, standards-based middleware solutions at a low cost, to enable mainstream customers to develop and deploy next-generation, service-enabled applications much sooner than previously expected. According to Gartner, Inc., the Application Integration and Middleware and Portal (AIM) markets for license revenue is preliminarily estimated to more than $6.5 billion in 2006. Paired with Red Hat's proven portfolio of enterprise solutions, Red Hat believes the combination, once consummated, will help accelerate the shift to SOA by making innovative, powerful solutions available to developers and customers that seek to lower development and deployment costs. The Common Bond of Open Source
With each committed to advancing open source software and its collaborative development model, Red Hat and JBoss have been recognized as open source leaders. The large and vibrant communities around Linux and JBoss prove that the open source development model creates innovative, quality software, while providing a flexible and low cost model for customers. This acquisition is expected to accelerate enterprise adoption of open source infrastructure, and broaden the entire market opportunity for existing and new Red Hat and JBoss partners who are building value-added enterprise solutions. A complete fit - business model, channels, service delivery, and culture
JBoss has modeled it's business after Red Hat's proven subscription model - services and support, delivered through an online network. Red Hat provides established channels and global service delivery capability trusted by the enterprise. JBoss adds enterprise-proven middleware technology, community leadership, and a strong developer brand to Red Hat - a tight fit of business model and service delivery model. JBoss management chose Red Hat because it aligns to the vision of JBoss - delivering customer value by simplifying development, reducing cost barriers for adoption, and making it safer for use in mission-critical deployments by providing expert support services and advanced management tools.
"The union of these two companies will demonstrate the benefits of a pure open source play," said Marc Fleury, CEO of JBoss. "Our customers are increasingly standardizing their infrastructures on open source technologies and want a stable and trusted global open source vendor to support them. By joining forces with Red Hat, we expect to be able to provide enterprises the largest offering of open source solutions, a global services network staffed by technology experts, and a large and vibrant eco-system of certified products and services. This is a winning combination that we believe will further expedite the proliferation of open source in the enterprise, which has been our mission since day one."
Red Hat believes that the acquisition will be slightly dilutive to its quarter ending August 31, 2006, but neutral to earnings and cash flow for the full fiscal year. The transaction is expected to be accretive to both earnings and cash flow in the next fiscal year ending February 28, 2008.
For more information please visit http://www.redhat.com or http://www.jboss.com. Red Hat will be host a press/analyst webcast today at 9:15am EST. To access the webcast, please visit http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=67156&eventID=1292560. About Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat, the world's leading open source and Linux provider, is headquartered in Raleigh, NC with satellite offices spanning the globe. The most trusted name in open source, CIOs and other senior-level IT executives have ranked Red Hat as the industry's most valued vendor for two consecutive years in the CIO Insight Magazine Vendor Value study. Red Hat is leading Linux and open source solutions into the mainstream by making high quality, low cost technology accessible. Red Hat provides operating system software along with middleware, applications and management solutions. Red Hat also offers support, training and consulting services to its customers worldwide and through top-tier partnerships. Red Hat's open source strategy offers customers a long term plan for building infrastructures that are based on and leverage open source technologies with focus on security and ease of management. Learn more: http://www.redhat.com Forward-Looking Statements
Any statements in this press release about future expectations, plans and prospects for the Company, including statements containing the words "believes," "anticipates," "plans," "expects," "will," and similar expressions, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including: the factors discussed in our most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC (a copy of which may be accessed through the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov), reliance upon strategic relationships, management of growth, the possibility of undetected software errors, the risks of economic downturns generally, and in Red Hat's industry specifically, the risks associated with competition and competitive pricing pressures and the viability of the Internet. In addition, the forward-looking statements included in this press release represent the Company's views as of the date of this press release and these views could change. However, while the Company may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, the Company specifically disclaims any obligation to do so. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the Company's views as of any date subsequent to the date of the press release.
LINUX is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. RED HAT is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc. All other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
You try to tell people what you believe I think, rather than what I clearly say (or, in this case, didn't say).
And once again, when asked to present the truth (i.e., a post that clearly shows I said that Concurrent wasn't distributing RedHawk), you dodge, dart, and post everything but this.
In your repeated attempts to assasinate my character, you do far greater damage to your own.
But, keep it up. You're cute when you're mad.
Trust me...he'll claim unfairness no matter what. He thinks he doesn't even owe us the courtesy of an apology when he's clearly wrong: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1612495/replies?c=62
I see why you call yourself flaming death, cause with lies like that you're going to be burning for eternity.
Oh, so now you're telling me to burn in hell?
Nice.
You're so easy to manipulate. I just keep telling the truth, and you keep having your little meltdowns. So predictable. As I said earlier, you're cute when you're angry.
Nah, just predicting it. Anybody who would now try to sit here and say they were agreeing with me on that thread that Concurrent is distributing Linux is completely consumed with sin. Maybe one day you'll repent and spare yourself, but since you can't even open your mouth without more lies flying out that looks unlikely. But I'm sure you're not worried, like A-R-Rat you're probably not even a believer such things could ever happen.
I'll take a shot at this. I never saw the thread, and I have no idea what it's about other than a couple comments I've seen on this thread. So, in context from a fresh set of eyes:
You first chimed in with the stupid comment #15 "Red Hawk, what is that, another free copy of Red Hat?" We're talking about real-time Linux, which would have little to do with Red Hat, which distributes Linux for desktop and server.
The second stupid part of the comment #15, "So the Chinese can rip a free copy over the internet, and rename it "Red Flag" too then huh." first forgets that Red Flag is also a desktop/server Linux, and also assumes that Concurrent would actually give it to the Chinese. Nothing in the GPL states that the program must be available to all, only that you must release your modifications under the GPL to those people you give it to. IOW, Concurrent must license its modifications under the GPL to Lockheed, no more.
You were then challenged by others and replied in #21 with a bunch of statements phrased as questions to the effect that a person must give a copy to anyone who wants it.
The truth was then explained to you by FD in #27.
You then replied in #30 with a novel reading of the GPL, saying you must give when asked. The GPL states your responsibilities should you decide to redistribute. There is no clause requiring redistribution, and I challenge you to post one here. Here are the applicable clauses:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:The plain reading with the conditional "may" tied to the phrase "and distribute" says you have an option to distribute. Should you decide to distribute, you must comply with this term you referred to that applies to the argument:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish [notice it is restricted to what you decide to distribute], that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.So, Concurrent gives to Lockheed, it must put its code under the GPL to make the transfer to Lockheed not a copyright violation. Now there's nothing saying Lockheed has to distribute it further. As simply a user having received the program, Lockheed doesn't even need to accept the GPL:
0. ... Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restrictedSo the buck stops there. Concurrent to Lockheed and no further, unless Lockheed decides to give it to the Chinese (providing there's nothing in the Concurrent/Lockheed contract to the contrary).
So, on to the conversation: FD basically told you what I just told you in #31, only I provided the specific parts of the license to back me up.
You responded with some non-argument and insults in #32, not actually backing up your assertion.
He challenged you in #33 to provide a specific term in the license to prove your point rather than just linking to the whole document.
You reply in #34 with more insults, no proof.
FD replied in #35 taunting you about not being able to provide proof.
You got hammered by some other people for a while, then FD said in #60 "You said if you redistribute it, you have to release the source code." but I don't know where he got that from.
I was obviously drawing parallels to Red Hat, which the Chicomms either bought a single copy or got a copy from somewhere else, and now make infinite copies they resell under a different name. What's to stop them from doing the exact samething here? HINT: flamer's lie that Concurrent isn't distributing it at all is an obvious loser.
FD never said they were not
But this isn't Red Hat, and it isn't available for general download and anonymous sale. But however Concurrent works, the point is that you were factually incorrect: you do not have to give a copy to anyone who asks.
What's to stop them from doing the exact samething here?
While your code can be GPL, it can still be a corporate secret, covered under contracts with those you distribute it to. The GPL may give them the right to redistribute, but they can decline that right in the contract.
HINT: flamer's lie that Concurrent isn't distributing it at all is an obvious loser.
Not his lie, yours. I just read every one of his posts on that thread. He never said (and I quote you) "Concurrent isn't distributing it at all". He said they have the option of not redistributing it, that they couldn't be forced to redistribute it, but he never even hinted that they are not distributing it (obviously they're distributing it somewhat, as they have a contract with Lockheed to do exactly that).
The only lies I saw on that thread were yours, mainly related to your contention that the GPL forces a person to redistribute his derivative work of a GPL program.
As usual, not only do you lie on a thread, but you lie again in misrepresenting the posts of another user even after clarification is given, so it can't be an honest mistake.
Yes he did, on several occassions I already linked, including this one:
Do you have to distribute the source code if you don't distribute the Linux OS itself? Nope, you don't.
Keep lying, we wouldn't expect anything less.
What do you disagree with? That statement is correct.
This in no way says that "Concurrent isn't distributing it" does it?
Keep lying, we wouldn't expect anything less.
For someone so fond of correcting others English your reading comprehension is a crime against the language..
What do you mean, it is for sale, so they obviously are distributing it. Who can stop someone leftist whacko from buying a copy and giving it to the Chinese, if not the Chinese themselves?
While your code can be GPL, it can still be a corporate secret, covered under contracts with those you distribute it to.
Hasn't worked for anyone else, the goons from the FSF always show up and threaten to sue you, just like that article I linked called "The FSF, Linux's Hit Men." Don't act like you aren't aware.
He never said (and I quote you) "Concurrent isn't distributing it at all".
So what, he still argued that they weren't distributing it as his claim for why the Chinese couldn't get a copy, not just on that thread but many others. If he's finally ready to admit that they can, good for him, maybe now he'll actually even understand why giving the chinese free technology is ignorant in the first place. But I doubt it, just like you he'll continue to lie that he never said something, plus lie that the Chinese can't make unlimited copies once released, on and on, anything to protect your cybercommunist movement.
But it doesn't apply to a situation where a company is distributing it, obviously. That's where he keeps making this assertion, everytime I indicate the Chinese can make free copies once it's released, it's his failed attempt to run cover for the Chinese, just as you're doing now yourself.
Yes it does, when I say the Chinese can make free copies because it's being distributed, and then he says they're not distributing it.
You guys are the biggest pack of liars I've ever seen.
RedHawk 4.1 and RTE for SUSE are available now, with pricing details available from Concurrent.
Keep those lies coming!
Cool--now prove that their product is released under the GPL.
What version of Linux isn't under GPL? It's why you boys are lying endlessly here, because it is using that fanatical leftist's license you love so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.