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.
Obviously I wish they didn't use ANY software under that leftist's license, but of course that doesn't mean I'm going to instead use something that totally uses it like you keep pushing. Like I already said, it's no different than you wanting us to buy all PC's direct from the Chicomm government because most all PC's contain a few parts from China. I wish Dell didn't use ANY parts from China, but I'm not switching to Lenovo (Chicomm) just because Dell has a few Chinese parts, in fact I'm going to continue encouraging everyone to boycott Lenovo just like I encourage them to boycott Stallman.
OSS companies can make money
OSS companies do hire developers
The LGPL is OK
Stallman does not call the shots in the OSS community
Solairs and OSX would not be what they are w/out OSS
Its been a banner day for him..
But you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is and condemn them for it?
I'm going to continue encouraging everyone to boycott Lenovo just like I encourage them to boycott Stallman.
How are you encouraging them to boycott stallman your constantly pushing Samba on use with Solaris and OSX..
It's all one big leftist cabal, the copyrights for most GPL software are signed over to Stallman so they can become "copyleft" instead. You mean you never knew, yet you've been so committed to supporting them all this time.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=sign+over+copyrights+to+fsf&fr=FP-tab-web-t364&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
BTW--Did you see this? It relates to the orginal article of this thread.
Only at the expense of our traditional software companies, who lose a lot more than the open source cloners ever make up with their freeware fakes.
FSF has the resources and the will to enforce the GPL and other GNU licenses, but only for software for which it owns the copyrights; GPL'd software owned by others must be defended by its owners, since the FSF has no legal standing to enforce the GPL for them.
I would have never found this w/out your help so thank you, you have provided evidence that the GPL is just a distribution license and does not grant stallman ownership of my copyright should I put it under that license
I don't push anything GPL, that's what you do, and why we're always arguing. You love it, obviously, while I see it correctly as a leftist trojan horse. Apple and Sun shouldn't be using any GPL code as far as I'm concerned, but it is only a small part of their operating system, and isn't even installed by default. Sun only even includes it on a companion disk last time I checked, your attempts to smear them as radical leftists who use only GPL software is ridiculous. That's the Linux crowd, obviously.
And what, do you suppose, the companies who are saving hundreds of millions of dollars are doing with that money? You really just don't get the broken windows fallacy do you?
You push Solaris and OSX which use a good deal of GPL code..
Apple and Sun shouldn't be using any GPL code as far as I'm concerned
Are you willing to condem them for it
but it is only a small part of their operating system
I thought not...
I said it's situational. Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic. I believe in the best tool for the job and circumstances.
Doing a lot of content creation? OS X all the way.
Do I have the money and want to set up a small business office requiring a wide range of desktop and server applications? Probably OS X again.
Actually, anytime you're looking for low power consumption and brain-dead user friendly with a large set of available professional-level applications, it has to be OS X.
Setting up a couple hundred systems for users to do basic office work and intranet apps? I'd go with Linux.
A bunch of public computers at the library? Linux, unless you're in a rich neighborhood that can afford OS X.
Looking for five nines? I'd probably go AIX or Solaris, although Linux is at least worth a look now.
Do I need low-cost but reasonably reliable router/firewall/DNS/NAT/SMTP/POP/FTP/LDAP...? Linux, of course.
Do I want a quick, cheap, buy-install-run high-performance computing cluster without having to be an HPC expert? Apple XServes with OS X and XGrid.
Setting up a very high-volume, highly transactional, high-reliability database server and can't have a cluster? Probably Solaris.
Setting up a fairly custom job and need to be able to tweak anything in the OS, but still need a wide userbase of support? Linux is the only way to go.
Windows wouldn't be a choice for me in any of those unless there was a specific overriding reason that required me to use it.
The biggest reason for Solaris above is that it has been rigorously tested on Sun hardware, which isn't something you can usually say for Linux, and the serious combination hardware/software support from the one original vendor. With Microsoft or Linux you get the software vendor telling you it's a hardware problem and the hardware vendor telling you it's a software problem. Apple has this advantage too, but IMHO they're not mature enough for high-end, high-availability vs. the other 'nixes (wait until 10.5 and everything moved to Intel).
Otherwise, the choice of Solaris vs. Linux is usually what the person is comfortable with.
See post 44, like I said the guy must have had a change of heart, he is really speaking up in support of OSS today, really helping to debunk alot of fud..
Give it up. I've mentioned it to him before but he can never seem to grasp the concept.
You named one single tool, in the case of Solaris released on a seperate "companion" disk. Name some more, on behalf of your devotion to all things Stallman.
I've always told you my favorite is the MPL. I'd personally never release any software under the GPL because I don't like it much. However, I am able to counter irrational accusations against the GPL.
Depending on what the modifier/redistributor does, even the MPL, CDDL and others are "viral" because that's what comprises the payment to the copyright holder. You can keep complaining about "viral" if you don't believe that authors should be compensated for their works under their terms.
Solaris is free for use, why can't you use it in the library? Why can't you EVER speak out against the fanatical leftist Stallman, and work to only use his products when absolutely no other option exists? You did say he was a radical leftist, right? You prefer using software from radical leftists, when other free options exist?
I have said good things about Solaris and OSX on this very thread, I have also said good things in the past about windows.. Finally I have said bad things about stallman and thanks to your post you have provided evidence that me putting any software under GPL does not transfer rights to stallman.
What's a "bonafide Unix"? How far back do you have to go? Which branch is legit? Is BSD legit? Was SunOS legit? Is MINIX legit? Do we just call all of Unix a bastardized MULTICS? Do we call Windows XP a bastardized VMS? Or do we just recognize that all operating systems have their roots somewhere else?
You really screwed the pooch on that one. The FSF likes you to sign over copyright when you contribute to their GNU software collection (not the tens of thousands of GPL programs, just their GNU collection of about 300 programs), but it is not necessary. So much for "most GPL software."
Withdraw, or do we mark this one down as a lie?
Because I'm practical, not dogmatic and political like you and Stallman, who are simply two sides of the same coin.
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.