4 ms·

There's no "long legalese." The new license (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/javase-license.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwor

by 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.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    But you've had approval from legal the last 27 times you downloaded the Oracle JDK.
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?"

by dnomad 8y ago

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.
- mcguire 8y ago
  But you've had approval from legal the last 27 times you downloaded the Oracle JDK.

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?"