3 ms·

Surely it's no coincidence that, as Oracle removes differences between its JDK and OpenJDK, that they are throwing their weight behind this non-community proje

Surely it's no coincidence that, as Oracle removes differences between its JDK and OpenJDK, that they are throwing their weight behind this non-community project, with an enterprise version. Between sunsetting community owned Nashorn in favor of Graal solution to giving tools to OpenJDK presumably with fewer of their own maintainers, the resource shift is clear. Not that it's wrong or even nefarious, but devs need to realize who they're getting in to bed with when building a reliance on the tech.

brabel 8y ago
Graal is open-source and most projects under its umbrella are [GPL2-with-classpath-exception licensed](https://github.com/oracle/graal/#license https://github.com/oracle/graal/#license). The fact that they also have an Enterprise Edition does not make this a non-community project.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Sorry, I meant non-community owned. Mentioned in sibling comment, I use plenty of non-community-owned software, but I avoid wholly Oracle owned software.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    It's all GPL licensed. How is it not 'community owned'? What is your definition of 'community', exactly?
    - kodablah 8y ago
      Who makes the decisions and who can change the license and who can sue you for misuse of the software? I don't want to support any Oracle product if I can help it, regardless of license.
      - maxgale 8y ago
        But the software was already released under GPL2. Even if Oracle changes the license, the community can always fork it from the last open version.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> this non-community project What do you mean by non-community? Graal is developed by a large community of people at Oracle, other companies and universities.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > What do you mean by non-community? Who owns it. Sure, we all use stuff owned by large companies, we just have to pick and choose, and I avoid Oracle. As a dev community I wish we could avoid wholly owned Oracle software to make a statement about their business practices, but I understand that stance is unreasonable for many.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    That's a reasonable stance, but I thought you were comparing it to OpenJDK. I don't think Graal is any less community than OpenJDK. Similar people (RedHat, AMD, Intel, many universities) contribute to Graal in the same way they contribute to OpenJDK. I suppose there isn't a formal community process for Graal?
    - kjeetgill 8y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't think they're just as open at all. And I say this as a huge fan of all of your work on Graal and JRuby and a proponent of the Java platform. Contributing to Graal isn't just getting a commit into a GPLd project. It requires you to allow Oracle to ship it in GraalVM EE. I have no problem with dual lisenced code nor begrudge the business model, but this is distictly against the spirit of the GPL.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

brabel 8y ago

Graal is open-source and most projects under its umbrella are [GPL2-with-classpath-exception licensed](https://github.com/oracle/graal/#license https://github.com/oracle/graal/#license). The fact that they also have an Enterprise Edition does not make this a non-community project.

kodablah 8y ago
Sorry, I meant non-community owned. Mentioned in sibling comment, I use plenty of non-community-owned software, but I avoid wholly Oracle owned software.
- repolfx 8y ago
  It's all GPL licensed. How is it not 'community owned'? What is your definition of 'community', exactly?
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Who makes the decisions and who can change the license and who can sue you for misuse of the software? I don't want to support any Oracle product if I can help it, regardless of license.
    - maxgale 8y ago
      But the software was already released under GPL2. Even if Oracle changes the license, the community can always fork it from the last open version.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> this non-community project What do you mean by non-community? Graal is developed by a large community of people at Oracle, other companies and universities.

kodablah 8y ago
> What do you mean by non-community? Who owns it. Sure, we all use stuff owned by large companies, we just have to pick and choose, and I avoid Oracle. As a dev community I wish we could avoid wholly owned Oracle software to make a statement about their business practices, but I understand that stance is unreasonable for many.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  That's a reasonable stance, but I thought you were comparing it to OpenJDK. I don't think Graal is any less community than OpenJDK. Similar people (RedHat, AMD, Intel, many universities) contribute to Graal in the same way they contribute to OpenJDK. I suppose there isn't a formal community process for Graal?
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't think they're just as open at all. And I say this as a huge fan of all of your work on Graal and JRuby and a proponent of the Java platform. Contributing to Graal isn't just getting a commit into a GPLd project. It requires you to allow Oracle to ship it in GraalVM EE. I have no problem with dual lisenced code nor begrudge the business model, but this is distictly against the spirit of the GPL.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]