7 ms·

Is this actually a trap? The "trap" page has a huge warning section that clearly tells you license has substantially changed and how to get open JDK, and what l

Is this actually a trap? The "trap" page has a huge warning section that clearly tells you license has substantially changed and how to get open JDK, and what license it has. > With JDK 11 Oracle has updated the license terms on which we offer the Oracle JDK. The new Oracle Technology Network License Agreement for Oracle Java SE is substantially different from the licenses under which previous versions of the JDK were offered. Please review the new terms carefully before downloading and using this product. > Oracle also offers this software under the GPL License on jdk.java.net/11 https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk11-downloads-5066655.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk... This information is either deliberately or accidentally missing in the post. If we assume the author did his research before writing this piece, I can only believe this was done with purpose.

jodastephen 8y ago
Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...
- dnomad 8y ago
  There's no "long legalese." The new license (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/javase-license.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license...) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure FUD. Oracle has stated over and over and over how the new licensing model works. It's clear to anybody who spends a couple of minutes reading the documentation.
  - LaGrange 8y ago
    > How is that not clear? You'd think it's clear, and yet I've joined projects where software with such terms was included in production builds because "it was downloaded with npm so it's open source."
    - cowsandmilk 8y ago
      Huge difference legally between running: npm install package And having a user certify that they read a license agreement. I'll leave it to lawyers to talk about whether a user actually agrees to a license when they run "npm install", but Oracle's site at least requires the user to accept the license agreement by physically clicking a button. And I've worked at a lot of companies that drill into you that you do not click that button without approval from legal.
      - jsight 8y ago
        I get your point, but npm has the same issue even if you didn't accept the license. I mean, if you didn't accept the license that it comes with, then what license gives you a right to use it at all?
        ballenf 8y ago
        IMO, there's an argument that you implicitly license others in making your code available in a package manager such as NPM which requires no authentication or license clickthrough to incorporate code in your project, unlike the .net or other PMs where license terms are presented and require click-through agreement. Not saying anyone should stake any bets on that argument winning, just that it wouldn't likely be summarily dismissed in court and would at the very least factor into the damages calculation. Will be interesting to see if any cases like this ever get adjudicated and precedent set.
        jsight 8y ago
        What implicit license, though? GPL? BSD? Something else? I feel like developers have a tendency to gloss over these things as if all FOSS licenses are the same, but they really aren't.
  - jodastephen 8y ago
    If you want to claim that 2000+ word terms are not legalese then so be it. Suffice it to say, I disagree. What is needed here is a summary in the warning box on the main page. Something like "Do not download this unless you want to pay us".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - doodpants 8y ago
    What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for.
    - marcolussetti 8y ago
      Not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the clause state you can develop an application, but cannot run it in production/sell it.
      - doodpants 8y ago
        Not a lawyer either, but the license says that the "Programs" (meaning the JDK) may only be used for these purposes. Once I write my application, it will be running on the JRE, not the JDK.
        grogenaut 8y ago
        Iirc there is no jre in 11, just jdk, also Oracle is not dumb they likely have a clause covering your "loophole". Finally why would you develop on Oracle jdk and run on open. Seems like an easy way to get bugs.
        doodpants 8y ago
        Ah. I wasn't aware there was no separate JRE.
      - posterboy 8y ago
        Easy loophole, infinite open beta, continuous integration, rolling release. At which point, with which release would it turn from beta to commercial full gold master? Slippery Slope that. A better wording would be "if you make money, we want a cut, or you get a cut, got it?"
- paulie_a 8y ago
  It's just another license to ignore. I'll personally do whatever I want regardless of what is in the EULA.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    Not sure where you live or what sort of company you work for but in my country & our company we cannot just have a fuck all attitude towards software licenses.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      The USA and I've been doing it for two decades, honestly copyrights and licenses are not important to me. I have taken a fuck all attitude without consequence and will continue to do so forever.
      - misabon 8y ago
        Haha the plethora of GPL violations that exist without consequence sort of illustrate your point quite well.
        StreamBright 8y ago
        You think if Oracle's legal team is after your company you get a free get out of license violation card?
        misabon 8y ago
        Haha, I’m not playing that game because I’m lawsuit averse but I’m not surprised people are successful at it. This JDK includes telemetry so it just got a lot more dangerous to play but otherwise I’d guess license violations are pervasive at small shops.
        malka 8y ago
        even at big ones.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Many people are very used to clicking through Oracle's tedious licensing maze to download previous JDKs.
JoshuaAshton 8y ago
The majority of people don't download the JDK via this method (eg. a package manager) and will miss that big box about a license change. Edit: Plus even if they aren't you still have the general mindset of "next next install close" where people are so normalized to getting something like that, to test or deploy it would be very easy to miss - given the license of the previous versions it would be an expectation that you would also be able to use the next version for commercial use also. Although Oracle are perfectly within their rights to change the license, that doesn't mean it's not a dick move and a scummy thing to do.
- unmole 8y ago
  Anyone installing JDK via a package manager would be installing the GPL version.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    Absolutely not. We are installing via a package manager the Oracle issued RPM for example. I would have missed the licensing story if Joda was not writing an article about it.
    - dnomad 8y ago
      How is that possible? Are you going to the Oracle download page and downloading the RPMs? Are you specifically adding a repository that includes Oracle software? There are certainly no default repositories that include this code. The whole point (and it's been this way for years) is that you can't download the Oracle jdk without clicking through a license.
      - StreamBright 8y ago
        New JRE/JDK gets released -> somebody from our company goes and downloads the RPM after accepting the license -> she uploads the RPM into our internal repository -> somebody from another department changes the build scripts to use the new JRE/JDK -> few minutes later we are running the dev clusters with the new JRE/JDK. In this process the person who downloads the new RPM (aka me) has to be 100% sure that the new JDK is ok to be used. Which I completely missed (my bad) I was wondering about the GPL stuff a bit but I was thinking that Oracle came to their senses and started to distribute the JRE/JDK under a license that is better than the previous one. Again, my bad that I paid attention more to the performance improvements, modules, ZGC etc. than to the license changes. This is why I was surprised when I saw the article from Joda (his real name is Stephen?) and also upvoted, sent around to all my Java peers to be aware that this is absolutely, 100%, pure fuckery that Orcle just dumped on us.
Gaelan 8y ago
I think license changes are common enough that the reaction to such a thing is often "yeah, whatever." Most of the time, these sorts of things are not actually that substantial
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
So they're turning a well known product that was free for decades into an expensive enterprise offering. And you're saying that calling it a "substantially different" license is a warning? In my book this is not a warning at all. This is clearly an attempt to mislead without breaking any laws.

jodastephen 8y ago

Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...

dnomad 8y ago
There's no "long legalese." The new license (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/javase-license.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license...) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure FUD. Oracle has stated over and over and over how the new licensing model works. It's clear to anybody who spends a couple of minutes reading the documentation.
- LaGrange 8y ago
  > How is that not clear? You'd think it's clear, and yet I've joined projects where software with such terms was included in production builds because "it was downloaded with npm so it's open source."
  - cowsandmilk 8y ago
    Huge difference legally between running: npm install package And having a user certify that they read a license agreement. I'll leave it to lawyers to talk about whether a user actually agrees to a license when they run "npm install", but Oracle's site at least requires the user to accept the license agreement by physically clicking a button. And I've worked at a lot of companies that drill into you that you do not click that button without approval from legal.
    - jsight 8y ago
      I get your point, but npm has the same issue even if you didn't accept the license. I mean, if you didn't accept the license that it comes with, then what license gives you a right to use it at all?
      - ballenf 8y ago
        IMO, there's an argument that you implicitly license others in making your code available in a package manager such as NPM which requires no authentication or license clickthrough to incorporate code in your project, unlike the .net or other PMs where license terms are presented and require click-through agreement. Not saying anyone should stake any bets on that argument winning, just that it wouldn't likely be summarily dismissed in court and would at the very least factor into the damages calculation. Will be interesting to see if any cases like this ever get adjudicated and precedent set.
        jsight 8y ago
        What implicit license, though? GPL? BSD? Something else? I feel like developers have a tendency to gloss over these things as if all FOSS licenses are the same, but they really aren't.
- jodastephen 8y ago
  If you want to claim that 2000+ word terms are not legalese then so be it. Suffice it to say, I disagree. What is needed here is a summary in the warning box on the main page. Something like "Do not download this unless you want to pay us".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- doodpants 8y ago
  What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for.
  - marcolussetti 8y ago
    Not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the clause state you can develop an application, but cannot run it in production/sell it.
    - doodpants 8y ago
      Not a lawyer either, but the license says that the "Programs" (meaning the JDK) may only be used for these purposes. Once I write my application, it will be running on the JRE, not the JDK.
      - grogenaut 8y ago
        Iirc there is no jre in 11, just jdk, also Oracle is not dumb they likely have a clause covering your "loophole". Finally why would you develop on Oracle jdk and run on open. Seems like an easy way to get bugs.
        doodpants 8y ago
        Ah. I wasn't aware there was no separate JRE.
    - posterboy 8y ago
      Easy loophole, infinite open beta, continuous integration, rolling release. At which point, with which release would it turn from beta to commercial full gold master? Slippery Slope that. A better wording would be "if you make money, we want a cut, or you get a cut, got it?"
paulie_a 8y ago
It's just another license to ignore. I'll personally do whatever I want regardless of what is in the EULA.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Not sure where you live or what sort of company you work for but in my country & our company we cannot just have a fuck all attitude towards software licenses.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    The USA and I've been doing it for two decades, honestly copyrights and licenses are not important to me. I have taken a fuck all attitude without consequence and will continue to do so forever.
    - misabon 8y ago
      Haha the plethora of GPL violations that exist without consequence sort of illustrate your point quite well.
      - StreamBright 8y ago
        You think if Oracle's legal team is after your company you get a free get out of license violation card?
        misabon 8y ago
        Haha, I’m not playing that game because I’m lawsuit averse but I’m not surprised people are successful at it. This JDK includes telemetry so it just got a lot more dangerous to play but otherwise I’d guess license violations are pervasive at small shops.
        malka 8y ago
        even at big ones.
mcguire 8y ago
Many people are very used to clicking through Oracle's tedious licensing maze to download previous JDKs.

JoshuaAshton 8y ago

The majority of people don't download the JDK via this method (eg. a package manager) and will miss that big box about a license change. Edit: Plus even if they aren't you still have the general mindset of "next next install close" where people are so normalized to getting something like that, to test or deploy it would be very easy to miss - given the license of the previous versions it would be an expectation that you would also be able to use the next version for commercial use also. Although Oracle are perfectly within their rights to change the license, that doesn't mean it's not a dick move and a scummy thing to do.

unmole 8y ago
Anyone installing JDK via a package manager would be installing the GPL version.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Absolutely not. We are installing via a package manager the Oracle issued RPM for example. I would have missed the licensing story if Joda was not writing an article about it.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    How is that possible? Are you going to the Oracle download page and downloading the RPMs? Are you specifically adding a repository that includes Oracle software? There are certainly no default repositories that include this code. The whole point (and it's been this way for years) is that you can't download the Oracle jdk without clicking through a license.
    - StreamBright 8y ago
      New JRE/JDK gets released -> somebody from our company goes and downloads the RPM after accepting the license -> she uploads the RPM into our internal repository -> somebody from another department changes the build scripts to use the new JRE/JDK -> few minutes later we are running the dev clusters with the new JRE/JDK. In this process the person who downloads the new RPM (aka me) has to be 100% sure that the new JDK is ok to be used. Which I completely missed (my bad) I was wondering about the GPL stuff a bit but I was thinking that Oracle came to their senses and started to distribute the JRE/JDK under a license that is better than the previous one. Again, my bad that I paid attention more to the performance improvements, modules, ZGC etc. than to the license changes. This is why I was surprised when I saw the article from Joda (his real name is Stephen?) and also upvoted, sent around to all my Java peers to be aware that this is absolutely, 100%, pure fuckery that Orcle just dumped on us.

Gaelan 8y ago

I think license changes are common enough that the reaction to such a thing is often "yeah, whatever." Most of the time, these sorts of things are not actually that substantial

fauigerzigerk 8y ago

So they're turning a well known product that was free for decades into an expensive enterprise offering. And you're saying that calling it a "substantially different" license is a warning? In my book this is not a warning at all. This is clearly an attempt to mislead without breaking any laws.