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.
JBOSS uses the LGPL (© 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.), which is derived from the GPL. The main difference is that the LGPL is clear that linking from non-GPL code is allowed. Depending on the author's interpretation of the GPL, dynamic linking from proprietary code to GPL code can also be allowed. Although Stallman wrote the GPL and doesn't think dynamic linking should be allowed, it is a license to the distributor/modifier from the author, so it's what the author thinks that matters, not Stallman.
The LGPL is designed primarily to cover libraries, so I can understand why they'd make JBOSS LGPL instead of GPL -- as an application platform, people will be linking to it all the time, and you want to make it clear that other software doesn't have to be GPL.
It is just as "viral" (if you don't respect the copyright of others and want to use that term) as the GPL if you modify the library.
Unless you're finally willing to speak out against GPL
As I have often said I have no problem with IP owners using whatever license they choose to use be it the GPL, BSD, or completely closed. You on the other hand usually act as a zealot.
Its nice to see on this thread you appreciate how open source works with capitalism as stated when you pointed out that a private company built around the OSS model was sold for a good chunk of change to a company who also uses the OSS model. Making more money for stock holders and providing a nice offering for businesses. I also appreciate you pointing out that many in the OSS community who might be as zealous as you (albeit in a different direction) don't control the OSS landscape..
So you can't name a single time you'd use an actual Unix like Solaris or OSX over one of Stallman's clones. Exactly what I expected.
You guys (claim to) admit Stallman is a whacko leftist, but then prefer his software over American staples like Solaris and OSX. Just doesn't add up does it.
Well you obviously prefer his clones to bonafide Unix like Solaris and OSX (which are open source in their own ways), and defend him constantly, why shouldn't you be identified as a Stallmanite? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Most legal departments will still not touch LGPL, it's too ambiguous.
LGPL isn't GPL, isn't viral, and zealots don't typically if ever use it. They use GPL, just as Stallman prefers. I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain, no catches, no gimmicks though, so obviously you won't ever use that.
Including when they use the licenses of that radical leftist Stallman. Why can't you speak up against him? Your moral compass is broke? Or you don't have a problem with obvious leftists defining the standards of future technology? Both?
Last time I checked Samba was on OSX and Solaris both of which are GPL are are as much stallmans as Linux... But if you would like to know where I would use solaris over Linux its where there is a cost break point.... Where would I use OSX, I do use OSX as one of my desktops, my wife uses it for her desktop and I just bought a mini for my Mother-in-Law. I have spent a good chunk of change on Sun in the past few year. Most if not all of the people you regularallily insult here are of the same mind and use the right tool technologically and economically..
You didn't read again.
I asked you why it had to be "either-or"; i.e., why can't I run Windows AND Linux...
Think of it this way... I have three computers in my home. I've paid for Windows OS's for each of them. Why, then, if I also want to run Linux (which I haven't paid for), do you say I am "preferring" Linux?
I've not paid any money to support Linux, yet I have paid indirectly to Microsoft when I bought my computers with XP on them. If I've paid Microsoft and not Linux, how is this preferential to "whacko leftist Stallman"? You know he gets none of my money, right?
If you change LGPL code and attempt to redistribute it guess what you have to release? thats right you have to release the changes. The only thing significantly different about the LGPL is that the issue of file linking is set whereas in the GPL its not. And both licenses are written by stallman.
I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain
Sometimes I might be inclined but its not up to you, or me to tell people what to do with their IP is it?
You yourself endorsed Stallman on this very thread when you said the LGPL was not viral
So one tiny part of Solaris is GPL is your excuse for your choice of an O/S that is almost entirely GPL? LOL, that's no different than the argument we keep seeing that we should buy our computers straight from the Chicom government, simply because a few parts of most all PC's are made in China. Absurd, obviously.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606217/posts
No, it's a derivitave of the GPL, authored by the FSF. Yet you don't seem to hate it. Strange.
isn't viral
Go ahead, modify an LGPL program and redistribute it without also giving out the source for your modifications, and you'll find out exactly how "viral" it is as you violate the copyright of the author. The only meaningful difference between the licenses is that the LGPL specifically states linking is allowed, where the GPL relies on the interpretation of the author.
I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain
The capitalist system doesn't work on just giving stuff away, and neither does most open source. If you want to be able to modify and redistribute proprietary programs, you pay for the license with money. If you want to be able to modify and redistribute open source programs, you pay for the license by giving your improvements back to the author. In either case, valuable consideration is given to the author in exchange for certain rights.
Choice is nice. Don't have a few hundred grand to pay Microsoft for a development and distribution license for Windows CE? No problem, use Linux and pay in code instead.
Obviously because you chose Stallman's clone of Unix over bonafide Unix like Solaris for Intel. You could dual boot that, or even run in it a VMWare virtual machine like I do, all free of charge. But Nooooooo, you prefer the whacko leftist option, and argue for it and in defense of Stallman endlessly instead.
Just pointing out that GPL software has been helping, how did you put it, "American staples like Solaris and OSX", for years... You really have been very helpful on this thread, thanks..
LGPL is obviously more business friendly than GPL, but you're right, it IS still one of that fanatical leftist's licenses, and should be avoided if at all possible.
No you weren't, you were refusing to denounce software licensed by radical leftists. You have at one point admitted Stallman is a fanatical leftist, didn't you? Want me to find the post?
And you are refusing to denounce companies liek Sun and Apple that use software written by radical leftist..
LOL! Just because Stallman authored the license doesn't mean he is the one who is licensing the software. The author of the software is the one whom you are licensing from.
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.