Red Hat to Acquire JBoss 159
tecker writes "Redhat.com has a banner and press release that states that it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought. The press release states "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." Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?"
But what are the terms? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be interested to know more about the terms of the takeover, I remember reading recently that Marc let the Oracle deal drop because if/when he sold out he wanted his terms and conditions to be met.
What does this mean for Mono? (Score:3, Interesting)
In another topic it was pointed out that Novell are not doing particularly well with Linux. Given that they employ a number of Mono hackers are there any implications for Novell and said hackers?
Mono and Java integrate nicely (Score:1, Interesting)
help this girl... http://oneluckyboy.com/ [oneluckyboy.com]
Re:But what are the terms? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Would it... (Score:2, Interesting)
The only piece of jigsaw missing for Redhat is of course a good quality JVM, and hopefully if they put enough people at it GCJ should be good enough in a few years time. Right now Redhat bundles a copy IBM's/BEA's JVM with RHAS, which I am more then happy with.
Re:But what are the terms? (Score:2, Interesting)
But don't worry, if you don't like the direction RedHat are taking JBoss, you can fork from their version at any point.
Or you can piss and moan about it, take the moral high ground, denounce RedHat, but do nothing and contribute nothing yourself.
Re:But what are the terms? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a good day for RHAT (Score:3, Interesting)
JBoss Microsoft Agreement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
Regards,
Steve
Missing Link (Score:2, Interesting)
In order to run JBoss on RHEL you'll typically have to install someone's JDK - Sun's or IBM's (or even BEA's JRockit). Cue long discussion regarding open sourcing Java... I wonder how they intend to handle that gap when it comes to packaging and support.
I think this is a better result for JBoss and it's users than Oracle would have been. Still, I think Red Hat will have fun coping with some of the personalities in the JBoss line-up - I wish them luck!
Hmm, doesn't look like I'll be able to get to the JBoss forums today.
What about impact on LAMP and RUBY? (Score:1, Interesting)
RedHat trying to squeeze out Novell (Score:2, Interesting)
Looks like RedHat is trying to do Novell one better. And maybe now that Novell-JBoss partnership arrangement won't get renewed?
s p [eweek.com]
http://www.novell.com/products/support/jboss/ [novell.com]
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843829,00.a
Re:But what are the terms? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will JBoss go the way of CCVS (Score:4, Interesting)
The original product implemented communications protocols that were owned by financial institutions.
These protocols were under heavy NDA. As a result, there was never a release of CCVS under any open soruce license. Red Hat wanted to open up the whole thing, but that would have been a violation of our contracts with those financial institutions.
In addition, there was a rigorous certificaiton process required for any software that did this stuff -- if anyone did modify the software we distributed, it would have been in violation of the finanical institutions rules to actually use it without going through a rigorous and time-consuming certification process for basically every single change to a line of code.
How do I know? Basically, I'm the guy who wrote it.
(There was more than one of us, but I designed the whole thing, and wrote the infrastructure parts, all of the telecom modules, and some of the protocol modules and language adapters. Other people wrote some protocol modules that plugged into my code, some of our language adapters, and one guy wrote our database layer.)
Some CCVS trivia:
(You'll have to pardon me for going on like that. I'm kinda proud of what our little company managed to accomplish.)
Which reminds me: anyone from Red Hat (or with contacts at Red Hat) reading this? I'd love to get that source code back!
I believe I know how to make it open source today, and I'd like to take a stab at it -- and at porting it directly to today's 2.5G and 3G cell phones.
But, legally, Red Hat owns that source code, and I do not have the legal right to try to open it up without their say-so. I have been able to get responses from the folks at Main Street Softworks, but they don't have the CCVS source code or rights to it either.