10 ms·

What concerns you over the JVM versus say, GCC? Both are GPL licensed. Oracle has committed to openJDK being the reference implementation.

blunte 9y ago
If I say how nasty Oracle and Ellison have been in general, people will require me to provide references. I don't feel like researching it. But you can, if you want to answer your own question.
- Twirrim 9y ago
  GraalVM (and OpenJDK on which it's based) are 100% open source, on a GPLv2 license. It doesn't matter much what Oracle and/or Ellison do, the sources are all out there.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    This is a super bad assumption. Given what we've already seen around GPL trolling (Mchardy et al), that may not mean a whole lot. I would bet you a large amount of money Oracle would come after you anyway. It's just how they operate.
shakna 9y ago
Oracle vs Google over Android having the same interfaces comes to mind. [0] [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/10431439512/insanity-wins-as-appeals-court-overturns-googles-fair-use-victory-java-apis.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/10431439512/insan...
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Neither Sun, nor Oracle ever had any issue with Java vendors that play by the rules and there are plenty of them.
  - shakna 9y ago
    ... And Google isn't a vendor here. The API was made the same, but with Google's own implementation. Several juries and courts have heard the case and said that an API isn't copyrightable. CAFC dismissed the juries' findings without reasoning. It's been punted back to a new jury and court for a final hearing.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Google admited several times that they haven't done a clean room reverse engineering and their emails prove they were consciously trying to work around Java licensing issues. If Google cared so much, they could have bought Sun, but they were expecting it would just crash and burn, while the company would get away with it. Sadly for them Sun actually got a buyer.
      - shakna 9y ago
        > Google admited several times that they haven't done a clean room reverse engineering > It is undisputed that Google copied verbatim the declaring code of the 37 Java API packages—11,500 lines of Oracle’s copyrighted code. It also copied the SSO of the Java API packages. Google then wrote its own implementing code. The only problem with Google's implementation is the copying of the API. --- > If Google cared so much, they could have bought Sun, but they were expecting it would just crash and burn, while the company would get away with it. > The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy. > in any event that the jury must have found that Google did not act in bad faith Google tried to get a reasonable license. --- Even CAFC has said that if Google had not received advertising revenue from Android, their use of the APIs would have fallen under fair use. They are not a Java vendor.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        > They are not a Java vendor. Last time I checked https://developer.android.com/ https://developer.android.com/ and https://developer.android.com/guide/platform/ https://developer.android.com/guide/platform/ has the word Java written all over the place. So apparently they license an operating system, that makes use of Java, the language, and a subset of its standard library, to the point that it affects the sales of other Java vendors. On my naivety it makes them a Java vendor to me.
- nine_k 9y ago
  This happened before Java went open-source. (This is why it's so uncomfortable to make a closed-source thing a centerpiece of your product, unless you already own it.)
  - shakna 9y ago
    Sun released the GNU Compiler for Java in 1998 [0], so I'll need a source for that. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_for_Java https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_for_Java
    - nine_k 9y ago
      The compiler was never the problem; the API was. > The Java language was released to the public in 1995, under the Sun Community Source License, making the source freely available but requiring that products using the code were maintained to the Java standard, and that any commercial derivative works were licensed by Sun. > Over 2006 and 2007, due to pressure from developers, Sun changed the license of the various Java packages to use the GNU General Public License with a "classpath exception", allowing developers the needed access to make derivative works and with the ability to release applications with a different license. This led to the OpenJDK (Open Java Development Kit), first released in 2007. > Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform.[7][8] Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android operating system.[8] During development of Android, Google wanted to incorporate the Java Standard Edition libraries. Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google... In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed. So that everybody now knows: don't do that. Either use truly free code, or properly license it.
      - shakna 9y ago
        > The compiler was never the problem; the API was. I'm aware, that's the crux of the case. I was asking you to prove the statement: > This happened before Java went open-source. Which you have disproved now. We have no argument there - Java was open source at the time. > Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. > The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy. They also required Google not extend the API, which is where the deal failed. > In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed. So far, all juries and all but one court case has found that an API is not copyright-able. We'll see, but a compatible interface doesn't appear to be something you can license.
TJSomething 9y ago
My biggest concern is that there's an Enterprise Edition of GraalVM. I'm a little suspicious that the Community Edition will end up crippled and EE will cost more money than I'll ever want to spend.
- Volt 9y ago
  As long as the community can contribute to "uncripple" it relative to the enterprise version then there's no problem, no?
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Let's play your fantasy out for a minute. Imagine I hire a large and good enough team of engineers to duplicate any feature in the enterprise edition and contribute it within a day of being released, to the community edition. Do you believe Oracle or anyone will accept that? Because if not, that's a clear problem. (FWIW I strongly doubt they would be okay with this)
    - Twirrim 9y ago
      You still gain the benefit from having a nice faster GraalVM, and given it's open source, you could create a fork and encourage the community to use it as an alternative. I'm sure if you were producing a much faster GraalVM, you'd soon get people to move away from Oracle's one to yours (MariaDB vs MySQL springs to mind as a comparison)
      - dig1 9y ago
        The problem here is what loophole a big company like Oracle can find, if they don't like you. They can't prevent you from doing a fork, but can easily sue you for not keeping copyright visible enough in project page README file. Taking into account amount of resources they have, this will be enough to shut you down ;)
        Twirrim 9y ago

blunte 9y ago

If I say how nasty Oracle and Ellison have been in general, people will require me to provide references. I don't feel like researching it. But you can, if you want to answer your own question.

Twirrim 9y ago
GraalVM (and OpenJDK on which it's based) are 100% open source, on a GPLv2 license. It doesn't matter much what Oracle and/or Ellison do, the sources are all out there.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  This is a super bad assumption. Given what we've already seen around GPL trolling (Mchardy et al), that may not mean a whole lot. I would bet you a large amount of money Oracle would come after you anyway. It's just how they operate.

shakna 9y ago

Oracle vs Google over Android having the same interfaces comes to mind. [0] [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/10431439512/insanity-wins-as-appeals-court-overturns-googles-fair-use-victory-java-apis.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/10431439512/insan...

pjmlp 9y ago
Neither Sun, nor Oracle ever had any issue with Java vendors that play by the rules and there are plenty of them.
- shakna 9y ago
  ... And Google isn't a vendor here. The API was made the same, but with Google's own implementation. Several juries and courts have heard the case and said that an API isn't copyrightable. CAFC dismissed the juries' findings without reasoning. It's been punted back to a new jury and court for a final hearing.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Google admited several times that they haven't done a clean room reverse engineering and their emails prove they were consciously trying to work around Java licensing issues. If Google cared so much, they could have bought Sun, but they were expecting it would just crash and burn, while the company would get away with it. Sadly for them Sun actually got a buyer.
    - shakna 9y ago
      > Google admited several times that they haven't done a clean room reverse engineering > It is undisputed that Google copied verbatim the declaring code of the 37 Java API packages—11,500 lines of Oracle’s copyrighted code. It also copied the SSO of the Java API packages. Google then wrote its own implementing code. The only problem with Google's implementation is the copying of the API. --- > If Google cared so much, they could have bought Sun, but they were expecting it would just crash and burn, while the company would get away with it. > The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy. > in any event that the jury must have found that Google did not act in bad faith Google tried to get a reasonable license. --- Even CAFC has said that if Google had not received advertising revenue from Android, their use of the APIs would have fallen under fair use. They are not a Java vendor.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        > They are not a Java vendor. Last time I checked https://developer.android.com/ https://developer.android.com/ and https://developer.android.com/guide/platform/ https://developer.android.com/guide/platform/ has the word Java written all over the place. So apparently they license an operating system, that makes use of Java, the language, and a subset of its standard library, to the point that it affects the sales of other Java vendors. On my naivety it makes them a Java vendor to me.
nine_k 9y ago
This happened before Java went open-source. (This is why it's so uncomfortable to make a closed-source thing a centerpiece of your product, unless you already own it.)
- shakna 9y ago
  Sun released the GNU Compiler for Java in 1998 [0], so I'll need a source for that. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_for_Java https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_for_Java
  - nine_k 9y ago
    The compiler was never the problem; the API was. > The Java language was released to the public in 1995, under the Sun Community Source License, making the source freely available but requiring that products using the code were maintained to the Java standard, and that any commercial derivative works were licensed by Sun. > Over 2006 and 2007, due to pressure from developers, Sun changed the license of the various Java packages to use the GNU General Public License with a "classpath exception", allowing developers the needed access to make derivative works and with the ability to release applications with a different license. This led to the OpenJDK (Open Java Development Kit), first released in 2007. > Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform.[7][8] Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android operating system.[8] During development of Android, Google wanted to incorporate the Java Standard Edition libraries. Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google... In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed. So that everybody now knows: don't do that. Either use truly free code, or properly license it.
    - shakna 9y ago
      > The compiler was never the problem; the API was. I'm aware, that's the crux of the case. I was asking you to prove the statement: > This happened before Java went open-source. Which you have disproved now. We have no argument there - Java was open source at the time. > Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. > The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy. They also required Google not extend the API, which is where the deal failed. > In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed. So far, all juries and all but one court case has found that an API is not copyright-able. We'll see, but a compatible interface doesn't appear to be something you can license.

TJSomething 9y ago

My biggest concern is that there's an Enterprise Edition of GraalVM. I'm a little suspicious that the Community Edition will end up crippled and EE will cost more money than I'll ever want to spend.

Volt 9y ago
As long as the community can contribute to "uncripple" it relative to the enterprise version then there's no problem, no?
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Let's play your fantasy out for a minute. Imagine I hire a large and good enough team of engineers to duplicate any feature in the enterprise edition and contribute it within a day of being released, to the community edition. Do you believe Oracle or anyone will accept that? Because if not, that's a clear problem. (FWIW I strongly doubt they would be okay with this)
  - Twirrim 9y ago
    You still gain the benefit from having a nice faster GraalVM, and given it's open source, you could create a fork and encourage the community to use it as an alternative. I'm sure if you were producing a much faster GraalVM, you'd soon get people to move away from Oracle's one to yours (MariaDB vs MySQL springs to mind as a comparison)
    - dig1 9y ago
      The problem here is what loophole a big company like Oracle can find, if they don't like you. They can't prevent you from doing a fork, but can easily sue you for not keeping copyright visible enough in project page README file. Taking into account amount of resources they have, this will be enough to shut you down ;)
      - Twirrim 9y ago