4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Licensing The ecosystem looks like a hodgepodge of propriet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Licensing The ecosystem looks like a hodgepodge of proprietary, MIT (accompanied by a potentially non-enforceable "patent promise"), and Apache. It's better than what Oracle is doing with Java, but Apple did the right thing and released Swift under Apache.

pjmlp 6y ago
Like getting out every single new Java version since Java 6, adding AOT support (which Sun was completly against it was JIT or the highway), integrating GCs able to handle TB sized heaps in ms, adding value types and improving the generics story without doing Python 3 with 25 years old JARs, fibers, replacing JNI, bringing the metacircular JVM MaximeVM into production, long term roadmap to make Hotstop a mostly Java implementation, adding vector instructions in collaboration with Linaro and Intel,... Yeah, considering that only IBM did an acquisition offer that was quickly withdrawn, Oracle is being really nasty for Java, even Microsoft now contributes to OpenJDK.
- ralmidani 6y ago
  None of my criticism is regarding how Oracle has been managing Java at a technical level. I thought that would be clear from the context, but I am strictly concerned with the increasingly dark patterns in the licensing model; I had Oracle's Java 8 on one of my computers, and it worked fine, but then a few months ago I got a notification that I needed to update to a newer version. After it was done updating, I was presented with an ultimatum: accept the new licensing terms (no commercial use without paying) or uninstall the software. I chose to uninstall, and vowed to never touch Java again when I personally have the discretion. Yes, I know I can install OpenJDK, but given Oracle's past and present behavior, how can anyone be assured they won't attempt to extinguish OpenJDK, even in the near future? Oracle seems to be boiling the frog slowly, and it probably won't be long before it becomes impractical to use non-proprietary Java anywhere. Edit: There was no warning that installing the latest "update" to Java would trigger an ultimatum screen, and no way to revert the installation. And as far as I know, there is now no way to download Java from Oracle without accepting the new license terms. It's pretty obvious what Oracle's endgame strategy is.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Anyone with some knowledge of the Java eco-system knows perfectly well that Java is as free as ever, more so that it was under Sun, where it was only free beer without source. https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/oracle-jdk-faqs.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/orac... https://medium.com/@javachampions/java-is-still-free-2-0-0-6b9aa8d6d244 https://medium.com/@javachampions/java-is-still-free-2-0-0-6... Finally if you want top of the game JIT, GC, managed runtimes someone has to get the money. If you are afraid what Oracle might do with Java, better not touch any language handled by Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, SAP, ... It is not you that they care about, rather their shareholders.
    - ralmidani 6y ago
      When Apple releases Swift under Apache 2.0, which includes an explicit, unequivocal patent license, it inspires a lot more confidence than all the shenanigans Oracle has been pulling with GPL2. Whom Apple cares about is less important than how they behave. With Swift, they're buying goodwill in the FOSS community. Oracle, on the other hand, keeps burning bridges.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        The beauty of Apache 2.0 is that corporations don't have to contribute anything back to the community, really inspiring. Apple also enjoys making use of their lawyers by the way.
yyyk 6y ago
Everything in that list is MIT or Apache except the ancient version from 2012. The idea that releasing under MIT is bad would be news to users of Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. After all, software patents aren't a big deal for most languages. Perhaps excepting Swift, where patents are somewhat of a problem - it's debatable whether a competing implementation would be legal due to Apple's patents: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997302
- ralmidani 6y ago
  IANAL, but MIT plus a "patent promise" seems dangerous, because AFAIK it hasn't been established whether such a promise would lead to offensive patent litigation being thrown out. A lot of people refused to use React because it wasn't clear if Facebook intended to weaponize its patents. After lots of protest, Facebook relented and switched from BSD plus a patent grant to vanilla MIT. It hasn't been established in court if MIT by itself gives you implicit protection against patent litigation, but adding a patent grant that is one-side is, in the opinion of at least a few people on HN, more dangerous than not mentioning patents at all.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    I wasn't following React during that kerfuffle. Reading about it, it seems to be that Facebook made an Apache style licence with a very titled patent clause, where one's rights are terminated following any patent suit against Facebook, even if the patent suit did not relate to React. That is, the problem seems to be the phrasing of the patent clause which was included in the licence, and a different patent promise would not be a problem. The phrasing of the .NET patent promise[0] doesn't seem to have that problem. It might be a bit difficult for people who want to copy and modify the code, since the promise is limited there (only reimplemtations, but I can understand that since they don't want to waive the patents altogether). However, the promise seems fine for users of the framework (IANAL etc. etc.). [0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT
    - ralmidani 6y ago

pjmlp 6y ago

Like getting out every single new Java version since Java 6, adding AOT support (which Sun was completly against it was JIT or the highway), integrating GCs able to handle TB sized heaps in ms, adding value types and improving the generics story without doing Python 3 with 25 years old JARs, fibers, replacing JNI, bringing the metacircular JVM MaximeVM into production, long term roadmap to make Hotstop a mostly Java implementation, adding vector instructions in collaboration with Linaro and Intel,... Yeah, considering that only IBM did an acquisition offer that was quickly withdrawn, Oracle is being really nasty for Java, even Microsoft now contributes to OpenJDK.

ralmidani 6y ago
None of my criticism is regarding how Oracle has been managing Java at a technical level. I thought that would be clear from the context, but I am strictly concerned with the increasingly dark patterns in the licensing model; I had Oracle's Java 8 on one of my computers, and it worked fine, but then a few months ago I got a notification that I needed to update to a newer version. After it was done updating, I was presented with an ultimatum: accept the new licensing terms (no commercial use without paying) or uninstall the software. I chose to uninstall, and vowed to never touch Java again when I personally have the discretion. Yes, I know I can install OpenJDK, but given Oracle's past and present behavior, how can anyone be assured they won't attempt to extinguish OpenJDK, even in the near future? Oracle seems to be boiling the frog slowly, and it probably won't be long before it becomes impractical to use non-proprietary Java anywhere. Edit: There was no warning that installing the latest "update" to Java would trigger an ultimatum screen, and no way to revert the installation. And as far as I know, there is now no way to download Java from Oracle without accepting the new license terms. It's pretty obvious what Oracle's endgame strategy is.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Anyone with some knowledge of the Java eco-system knows perfectly well that Java is as free as ever, more so that it was under Sun, where it was only free beer without source. https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/oracle-jdk-faqs.html https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/orac... https://medium.com/@javachampions/java-is-still-free-2-0-0-6b9aa8d6d244 https://medium.com/@javachampions/java-is-still-free-2-0-0-6... Finally if you want top of the game JIT, GC, managed runtimes someone has to get the money. If you are afraid what Oracle might do with Java, better not touch any language handled by Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, SAP, ... It is not you that they care about, rather their shareholders.
  - ralmidani 6y ago
    When Apple releases Swift under Apache 2.0, which includes an explicit, unequivocal patent license, it inspires a lot more confidence than all the shenanigans Oracle has been pulling with GPL2. Whom Apple cares about is less important than how they behave. With Swift, they're buying goodwill in the FOSS community. Oracle, on the other hand, keeps burning bridges.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      The beauty of Apache 2.0 is that corporations don't have to contribute anything back to the community, really inspiring. Apple also enjoys making use of their lawyers by the way.

yyyk 6y ago

Everything in that list is MIT or Apache except the ancient version from 2012. The idea that releasing under MIT is bad would be news to users of Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. After all, software patents aren't a big deal for most languages. Perhaps excepting Swift, where patents are somewhat of a problem - it's debatable whether a competing implementation would be legal due to Apple's patents: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18997302

ralmidani 6y ago
IANAL, but MIT plus a "patent promise" seems dangerous, because AFAIK it hasn't been established whether such a promise would lead to offensive patent litigation being thrown out. A lot of people refused to use React because it wasn't clear if Facebook intended to weaponize its patents. After lots of protest, Facebook relented and switched from BSD plus a patent grant to vanilla MIT. It hasn't been established in court if MIT by itself gives you implicit protection against patent litigation, but adding a patent grant that is one-side is, in the opinion of at least a few people on HN, more dangerous than not mentioning patents at all.
- yyyk 6y ago
  I wasn't following React during that kerfuffle. Reading about it, it seems to be that Facebook made an Apache style licence with a very titled patent clause, where one's rights are terminated following any patent suit against Facebook, even if the patent suit did not relate to React. That is, the problem seems to be the phrasing of the patent clause which was included in the licence, and a different patent promise would not be a problem. The phrasing of the .NET patent promise[0] doesn't seem to have that problem. It might be a bit difficult for people who want to copy and modify the code, since the promise is limited there (only reimplemtations, but I can understand that since they don't want to waive the patents altogether). However, the promise seems fine for users of the framework (IANAL etc. etc.). [0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT
  - ralmidani 6y ago