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.
Not to the general public.
Who can stop someone leftist whacko from buying a copy and giving it to the Chinese
Because they only work through corporate contracts. This isn't type in your VISA number and download a copy. But if you want it, you can download RT Linux from public sources.
Hasn't worked for anyone else, the goons from the FSF always show up and threaten to sue you
They couldn't sue in this case, as long as Concurrent gives the source to its corporate clients and obeys other minor terms of the GPL. For example, Linksys/Cisco was selling routers to the public without making the source code available to the buyers (those it was distributing the program to). That is in clear violation of the GPL.
I still wonder why you think enforcing copyright with open source is bad, but enforcing copyright with proprietary software is good.
So what, he still argued that they weren't distributing it as his claim for why the Chinese couldn't get a copy
Wow, and to think FD never wrote "China" or "Chinese" once during that thread.
You claimed the Chinese could get it because the GPL forced Concurrent to give a copy to anyone who wanted it. That is factually incorrect, a lie. FD was absolutely correct, they are not forced to give it to anyone.
As usual, you are the liar, and the people you defame are correct.
BTW, I just found out I was wrong about Concurrent. Their Linux has a lot to do with Red Hat since it is not (as I had assumed) based on RTLinux, but is a version of Red Hat modified to work in real-time. But here's where it gets strange -- they replace the Red Hat Linux kernel with their own real-time Linux kernel, so while they may be redistributing (to its corporate clients) Red Hat GPL software, they are not redistributing Red Hat's Linux (as defined by the actual Linux kernel, not the whole package of kernel + utilities). However, that is immaterial to the discussion of Concurrent having to give away code to the Chinese when asked.
You also don't know that what makes Concurrent's Linux very useful is the fact that the kernel is modified to take advantage of its proprietary tools, which are one of the big reasons to go with Concurrent rather than just downloading RTLinux.
I would agree that there are parts of Red Hawk under the GPL. However, I would also believe that the important parts (the RT stuff, for example) are not.
It is perfectly legal and possible to merge two licenses undeer one product for commercial use. See Cedega and VMware for examples.
According to the article I just linked from Linux Devices it is.
FD was absolutely correct, they are not forced to give it to anyone.
No he wasn't, the flaming dude from hell has been attempting to claim Concurrent wasn't even distributing it at all, which of course was ridiculous since the thread was a Press Release from Concurrent announcing it! LMAO!
#15: "So the Chinese can rip a free copy over the internet, and rename it "Red Flag" too then huh." -- Factually false, their products are not available over the Internet for anyone.
#21 (statements phrased as questions), all factually false, whether to redistribute the code to anyone is up to Concurrent:
#30: "But the Chicoms rename theirs "Red Flag" and use it to run their supercomputers" -- Factually false. I've caught you on this before, and you gave a half-assed retraction, yet you still repeat it. It still stands as a lie, as since you repeated it I can assume your retraction wasn't sincere.
#34: "but anyone who knows anything about these matters is well aware that you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for it, if you ever try to resell any GPL code such as a Linux distro" -- Factually false, see above.
#48: To "RedHawk is not a free distro" you stated "It will be, as soon as ANYONE who bought a copy decides to release the source code." -- Factually incorrect. The distribution comes with proprietary applications. Only GPL code within the distribution has to be released when redistributing.
#55: "China LEGALLY takes the latest copy of "Red Hat Linux" and promptly renames it ... "Asianux"" -- Partially incorrect. Asianux is a consortium between companies from China, South Korea and Japan (the last being majority owned by Oracle of the USA).
Wow, GE, that's a big list of factual, demonstrable lies for one thread. Going for a record?
Wow, so you might finally be admitting, that it would be stupid for people to release critical components of their software under that whacko leftist license, the GPL? Not that I'm expecting it, since I've been dealing with the flaming dude from hell's endless lies that they aren't even distributing it LOL.
I've never denied it. However, I also think that an OS--MS, Linux, and Apple included--does not come under the category of "critical" in terms of national security.
GE You can end this right now, please point us to a link where we can download the source for Concurrents real time tools..
Why are you suddenly running from your lies trying to claim it's not for sale?
Since of course, once you sell it, you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for a copy, who can then make infinite copies, even rename and resell just like the Chinese do with Red Flag.
These issues aren't difficult, you boys just do your darndest to make them that way. It's called a "coverup", if you never heard of one.
Maybe you can't download the whole thing, Concurrent would have to be as dumb as you boys if you can. That's what I was asking on the original thread, remember? But all I got was the flaming dude from hell's lies that it wasn't being distributed at all.
The deceiver turns to religion to win his argument.
You've reached a new low, and I didn't think that was possible.
I guess I would be offended if I respected you or your opinions.
"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."
Yep, once again, I gave him more credit than he deserved. I have a bad habit of assuming that he understands things.
So is that a no, you cant download the important parts of redhawk?
That's what I was asking on the original thread, remember?
And FD never said 'they dont have to give it out' he said if they are not distributing it they do not have to give it out.
Yeah, and I never said it did. You had a question concerning the GPL, not what Concurrent was actually doing with RedHawk. I gave you an answer concerning the GPL, not dealing with what Concurrent was doing, and in a giant leap, you came to the conclusion that I was saying Concurrent wasn't distributing it.
Of course, it wasn't an accidental leap...it is character assasination; attributing comments to someone that they did not make so that you can smear them. That's the only way you can appear to win, but most, if not all who follow these threads can see right through you. The more you pursue this, especially throwing in the religious condemnations, the more desperate and pathetic you look.
Scary, but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. I've had dealings with people who can't accept reality, and they lead miserable lives.
Remember, facts are facts, no matter what you think of them.
Hysterical! Since we all know they are giving it out, at least every part that uses that whacko leftist license you boys are willing to lie endlessly for.
Why are you suddenly running from your lies trying to claim it's not for sale?
Not for sale to just everyone, only those they choose to enter a contract with. It is not up for general public ordering or download.
Since of course, once you sell it, you have to provide the source code to anyone who asks for a copy
Didn't I just disprove that lie? I seem to remember doing it recently, even pointing to the specific clauses of the license. Selling it to one company gets the source for that one company, not "anyone." The fact that most open source programs have their full source up for everyone to get doesn't mean that it is required.
Not "maybe," you can't.
You didn't ask. You stated. Even your questions were statements in the form of questions. And you maintained your position even after you were told you were incorrect. I won't call this weaseling because I kind of like weasels, and wouldn't want to insult them with a comparison to you.
The problem is that on FR we tend to assume we're talking to intelligent, rational people. I mean, it's not like we're on DU, right?
Maybe that's it. I think I've discovered GE's origin.
People have called GE a Microsoft employee, but I've always disagreed. Microsoft might do some nasty things, but they never go for stupid. Remember the idiotic Ken Brown attack on Linux? Microsoft distanced themselves really fast on that one, and they've been staying far away from SCO. No, Microsoft is too smart a company to want to have GE as a cheerleader or FUD spewer.
However, having GE as a long-time FReeper does bring great discredit upon Free Republic. He gives perfect ammunition for the DUmmies to say "Look how stupid FReepers are!" He must be a DU plant.
DU? How did you miss my link the other day from there? Remember, when you took your normal side defending the leftists?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x665385
Knowing Their Politics by the Software They Use
By STEVE LOHR
Published: July 5, 2004
In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights....
You link to all the trendy leftist sites...
DU, stallman.com, communism.org, etc...
Yeah. Don't know what his origin is, but it's obvious that his motivation is not driven by his personal beliefs. No one can be that fanatical about software.
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.