4 ms·
> 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 de
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI'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]