4 ms·

It's mostly FUD: it's only relevant for the Oracle JDK; it doesn't apply to OpenJDK (or the other open distributions by other orgs).

aw1621107 7y ago
Glad to hear that; I thought I remembered reading something like that back when the license change was first announced, but I wasn't sure if something else had changed in the meantime.
cxr 7y ago
It doesn't help that multiple Oracle/Sun folks—including people like McNealy—said under oath that they don't believe that the licensing permits you to make commercial use, even if you opt for the GPL version.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  At the time Google screwed Sun, the GPL version did not cover the deployment into embedded platforms, only desktop and servers. OpenJDK license is another matter.
  - cxr 7y ago
    I don't know what you're referring to, but FSF does not allow the GPL be used in such a way that the four freedoms are compromised by the licensor imposing additional restrictions.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Except that there are plenty of dual licenses with GPL-exception clauses and Java was one of them back then. It is up to the courts and copyright holder to decided what to do with their IP.
      - cxr 7y ago
        First, you didn't describe an exception; you described additional restrictions. But now you're pivoting to talk about exceptions. These are fundamentally different things. One enlarges the set of actions a recipient is free to do relative to what vanilla GPL allows. This is permitted (and in the case of the classpath exception, endorsed) by FSF. The other attempts to shrink the size of that set by denying the user things that the GPL would otherwise allow. The FSF simply does not permit the GPL to be used in that combination (and there would be extreme contrast in your last sentence and the failure to recognize the FSF's say in this). And secondly, you've yet to substantiate your claim that Java was ever distributed with such GPL-modifying restrictions.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Well, I let Gosling speak about Google's then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...
        cxr 7y ago
        How about a straightforward response, rather than trying to change the subject again? What's more, I've seen this interview multiple times. Listening to Gosling stutter and be coy is not illuminating in the least. He has no idea how to answer the question he was asked, much less what's being discussed here now. Can you substantiate your claim or not?
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Sun as copyright holder had the right to constraint Java's usage as they wanted and embedded deployment wasn't covered. Naturally it is hard for anyone to link to anything Sun, given what happened with their assets and Internet presence. Is a substantiate argument? Maybe not, it doesn't change the fact that Google screwed Sun, didn't bothered to rescued it went it went down, and now we have Java and Android Java. I guess FSF is happy with the outcome then, since it is allowed to tank companies.

aw1621107 7y ago

Glad to hear that; I thought I remembered reading something like that back when the license change was first announced, but I wasn't sure if something else had changed in the meantime.

cxr 7y ago

It doesn't help that multiple Oracle/Sun folks—including people like McNealy—said under oath that they don't believe that the licensing permits you to make commercial use, even if you opt for the GPL version.

pjmlp 7y ago
At the time Google screwed Sun, the GPL version did not cover the deployment into embedded platforms, only desktop and servers. OpenJDK license is another matter.
- cxr 7y ago
  I don't know what you're referring to, but FSF does not allow the GPL be used in such a way that the four freedoms are compromised by the licensor imposing additional restrictions.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Except that there are plenty of dual licenses with GPL-exception clauses and Java was one of them back then. It is up to the courts and copyright holder to decided what to do with their IP.
    - cxr 7y ago
      First, you didn't describe an exception; you described additional restrictions. But now you're pivoting to talk about exceptions. These are fundamentally different things. One enlarges the set of actions a recipient is free to do relative to what vanilla GPL allows. This is permitted (and in the case of the classpath exception, endorsed) by FSF. The other attempts to shrink the size of that set by denying the user things that the GPL would otherwise allow. The FSF simply does not permit the GPL to be used in that combination (and there would be extreme contrast in your last sentence and the failure to recognize the FSF's say in this). And secondly, you've yet to substantiate your claim that Java was ever distributed with such GPL-modifying restrictions.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Well, I let Gosling speak about Google's then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...
        cxr 7y ago
        How about a straightforward response, rather than trying to change the subject again? What's more, I've seen this interview multiple times. Listening to Gosling stutter and be coy is not illuminating in the least. He has no idea how to answer the question he was asked, much less what's being discussed here now. Can you substantiate your claim or not?
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Sun as copyright holder had the right to constraint Java's usage as they wanted and embedded deployment wasn't covered. Naturally it is hard for anyone to link to anything Sun, given what happened with their assets and Internet presence. Is a substantiate argument? Maybe not, it doesn't change the fact that Google screwed Sun, didn't bothered to rescued it went it went down, and now we have Java and Android Java. I guess FSF is happy with the outcome then, since it is allowed to tank companies.