4 ms·

Graal Community Edition is licensed under GPL, there is a Enterprise Edition that has additional features that is licensed differently. OpenJDK does not need c

Graal Community Edition is licensed under GPL, there is a Enterprise Edition that has additional features that is licensed differently. OpenJDK does not need commercial licensing, but Oracle JDK which is built from OpenJDK needs. Then there are plenty of other vendors to chose from if you absolutely does not want to interact with Oracle. IBM and now Eclipse foundation OpenJ9 is a very interesting TCK compliant JVM, then you have Azul Systems that innovates a lot with Zulu/Zing.

acqq 7y ago
GPL is not usable for any small company which doesn't want to publish its own sources. What can be used only using BSD, MIT, Apache licenses? And what from the GPL-licensed products is safe to use to produce and sell own closed source products (e.g. where the exception to GPL exists for just linking the libraries or similar)? Edit1: Long term dangers/costs of depending on the technologies that need commercial licenses like Oracle’s are also important. Edit2: And additionally, just as an old example, once I’ve considered using Berkeley DB in the closed source product (before some of the current alternatives were available), and my interaction with Oracle proved that only a bigger corporation could fund that. For a library which was already open source, but owned by Oracle. It's not that I'm in the "I don't want to pay for anything" camp -- I'm simply having a perspective of a small player. And about small players Oracle couldn't care less. However, the significant changes very often come at that level of cheapness and overhead, most of technologies would be still not widely accepted otherwise.
- walkingolof 7y ago
  You probably use Linux today, that fact does not require you to publish the source for your program running on Linux.
- mateuszf 7y ago
  > GPL is not usable for any small company which doesn't want to publish its own sources. Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIU you have to publish any changes to that library, not your sources.
  - acqq 7y ago
    There are different levels of what’s allowed for different GPL based licenses. To use a library as a library with another license a GPL library exception has to exist for the library etc. If you step on only one of such mines your whole product has to be GPL-ed. It the context of my questions here, and as an example, my guess is that I can't use graalvm to produce a binary which I can sell without either open sourcing everything I've made or paying too much to Oracle. But I don't know for sure and for each of the mentioned technologies, that's why I'm asking very specific questions.
    - fcurts 7y ago
      > my guess is that I can't use graalvm to produce a binary which I can sell without either open sourcing everything I've made or paying too much to Oracle. GraalVM CE is licensed under GPL 2 with Classpath exception (https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/LICENSE), specifically so that binaries created with GraalVM (which contain the GraalVM runtime) don't fall under the GPL.
- josefx 7y ago
  As far as I can tell the GPL in the Graal source repo includes a classpath exception. So the license wont affect a program distributed with it.

acqq 7y ago

GPL is not usable for any small company which doesn't want to publish its own sources. What can be used only using BSD, MIT, Apache licenses? And what from the GPL-licensed products is safe to use to produce and sell own closed source products (e.g. where the exception to GPL exists for just linking the libraries or similar)? Edit1: Long term dangers/costs of depending on the technologies that need commercial licenses like Oracle’s are also important. Edit2: And additionally, just as an old example, once I’ve considered using Berkeley DB in the closed source product (before some of the current alternatives were available), and my interaction with Oracle proved that only a bigger corporation could fund that. For a library which was already open source, but owned by Oracle. It's not that I'm in the "I don't want to pay for anything" camp -- I'm simply having a perspective of a small player. And about small players Oracle couldn't care less. However, the significant changes very often come at that level of cheapness and overhead, most of technologies would be still not widely accepted otherwise.

walkingolof 7y ago
You probably use Linux today, that fact does not require you to publish the source for your program running on Linux.
mateuszf 7y ago
> GPL is not usable for any small company which doesn't want to publish its own sources. Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIU you have to publish any changes to that library, not your sources.
- acqq 7y ago
  There are different levels of what’s allowed for different GPL based licenses. To use a library as a library with another license a GPL library exception has to exist for the library etc. If you step on only one of such mines your whole product has to be GPL-ed. It the context of my questions here, and as an example, my guess is that I can't use graalvm to produce a binary which I can sell without either open sourcing everything I've made or paying too much to Oracle. But I don't know for sure and for each of the mentioned technologies, that's why I'm asking very specific questions.
  - fcurts 7y ago
    > my guess is that I can't use graalvm to produce a binary which I can sell without either open sourcing everything I've made or paying too much to Oracle. GraalVM CE is licensed under GPL 2 with Classpath exception (https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/LICENSE), specifically so that binaries created with GraalVM (which contain the GraalVM runtime) don't fall under the GPL.
josefx 7y ago
As far as I can tell the GPL in the Graal source repo includes a classpath exception. So the license wont affect a program distributed with it.