3 ms·

If the Hudson debacle was an isolated case, I'd agree with you. But Oracle have been alienating a lot of people in the open source community, and this incident

If the Hudson debacle was an isolated case, I'd agree with you. But Oracle have been alienating a lot of people in the open source community, and this incident isn't going to reassure anyone of Oracle's intentions. And whilst the OpenJDK is open source, Oracle have made it pretty clear that they are not above using trademarks and patents to enforce their control over the JVM.

cemerick 16y ago
I guess my response would be, "So?". The question is whether the JVM is a reasonable, safe, and reliable platform to build upon. While Oracle's actions vis à vis various projects haven't been what many would have preferred, AFAIK they've stated their intentions for OpenJDK pretty clearly -- and the recent folding of IBM and Apple into that project is no small endorsement. As for control of their VM, yeah, I'd expect that (the Google issues are entirely separate from the JCP drama, etc, which is SOP since long before Oracle came around). FWIW, I say most of this to reassure myself more than anything else, given my investment in the JVM. If there are real substantive reasons to be concerned – essentially, indications that Oracle has likely just lied about their plans for the JVM, or something more than the vague warnings I usually see – I want to be the first to know.
- weavejester 16y ago
  I don't think the JVM is in any particular danger of disappearing, otherwise I wouldn't be still programming in it :) However, a technology controlled by a single vendor, even one as large as Oracle, is at greater risk than one that is an open standard with several competing implementations. I'd be happier if Oracle were encouraging alternative JVMs, rather than suing them or withholding testkit licenses.
- regularfry 16y ago
  The JVM is safe for precisely as long as it's in Oracle's interests for the current situation to pertain. Oracle aren't capricious per se, but they are the very definition of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, in a way that Sun famously weren't. If they see a way to monetise the platform that as a byproduct happens to close it down as an open venue, I don't think that would stop them for a second.

cemerick 16y ago

I guess my response would be, "So?". The question is whether the JVM is a reasonable, safe, and reliable platform to build upon. While Oracle's actions vis à vis various projects haven't been what many would have preferred, AFAIK they've stated their intentions for OpenJDK pretty clearly -- and the recent folding of IBM and Apple into that project is no small endorsement. As for control of their VM, yeah, I'd expect that (the Google issues are entirely separate from the JCP drama, etc, which is SOP since long before Oracle came around). FWIW, I say most of this to reassure myself more than anything else, given my investment in the JVM. If there are real substantive reasons to be concerned – essentially, indications that Oracle has likely just lied about their plans for the JVM, or something more than the vague warnings I usually see – I want to be the first to know.

weavejester 16y ago
I don't think the JVM is in any particular danger of disappearing, otherwise I wouldn't be still programming in it :) However, a technology controlled by a single vendor, even one as large as Oracle, is at greater risk than one that is an open standard with several competing implementations. I'd be happier if Oracle were encouraging alternative JVMs, rather than suing them or withholding testkit licenses.
regularfry 16y ago
The JVM is safe for precisely as long as it's in Oracle's interests for the current situation to pertain. Oracle aren't capricious per se, but they are the very definition of capitalism, red in tooth and claw, in a way that Sun famously weren't. If they see a way to monetise the platform that as a byproduct happens to close it down as an open venue, I don't think that would stop them for a second.