3 ms·
> TL;DR: Yes. You have to pay for Java now. You have to pay for Oracle JDK but not for OpenJDK, which is just as good, except for a less business-friendly lice
by fcurts 8y ago
> TL;DR: Yes. You have to pay for Java now.
You have to pay for Oracle JDK but not for OpenJDK, which is just as good, except for a less business-friendly license, no commercial support, and no LTS builds straight from Oracle (instead you need to put your bets on adoptopenjdk.net).
> Quoting the article: «Oracle JDKs may only be used in production if you buy the commercial support.»
Yes, but the author forgets about this in the "What does the new release train mean to my company?" section and draws completely wrong conclusions.
> The alternative is using OpenJDK in production. We'll have to see how much the Oracle JDK and OpenJDK will diverge.
They will be identical. All of Oracle's JDK work, even LTS related work, will go into the OpenJDK repo.
- the_why_of_y 8y agoHow is a license that puts no restrictions on usage "less business-friendly"? ... Oh I see, Oracle's strategy here is to monetize GPL FUD.
- fcurts 8y ago> How is a license that puts no restrictions on usage "less business-friendly"? Use of GPL licensed software is heavily restricted in many corporations, whether or not it has the Classpath Exception. Among other things, it's hard to verify/enforce that projects only link against files that have the Classpath Exception.
- Schumer 8y agoYou realize they own Java and are it's biggest contributors?
- znpy 8y agoI hope you're right.