4 ms·

They couldn't develop a _port_ though, that would violate the GPL. They could write their own JVM from scratch without using any OpenJDK code, but decided here

They couldn't develop a _port_ though, that would violate the GPL. They could write their own JVM from scratch without using any OpenJDK code, but decided here that it was easier to ""only"" port OpenJDK. Copyleft can't prevent other people from making a clone of your software, but it does redefine the choices to "clone software entirely" or "fork existing software and share changes", it removes the option of "fork existing software and DON'T share changes", i.e. benefiting from the open source nature of the project without giving those same benefits to others.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> They couldn't develop a _port_ though, that would violate the GPL. The person you're replying to already gave you an example of someone who does exactly what you're saying is impossible! > There are many commercial JDK/JVM offerings that are closed source and survive very well with their "secret sauce" (usually GC related), such as Azul's Zing JVM. How does that work? Even if code is GPL if you own it you can do what you want with it. That includes licensing it to someone under a _different_ licence. Being available under the GPL does not mean it can't also be available under another licence, such as a proprietary one. Which is what is done in this situation. > but it does redefine the choices to "clone software entirely" or "fork existing software and share changes" .. it removes the option of "fork existing software and DON'T share changes" None of this is true.
- ece 6y ago
  This is all conditional on Oracle actually giving others a proprietary license like Azul received. Oracle can say no, and in this case they might actually have given that it's ARM and not some proprietary chip that only Azul makes and sells AFAIK. There are no such conditions if you want to port the GPL code.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  My understanding is the part of OpenJDK Zing is based on is entirely owned by Oracle, so they can give Azul a license for it. Oracle could not do that for all of OpenJDK today unless OpenJDL has a super weird CLA that signs away ownership of the code because they do not own all of the code.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> They couldn't develop a _port_ though, that would violate the GPL. The person you're replying to already gave you an example of someone who does exactly what you're saying is impossible! > There are many commercial JDK/JVM offerings that are closed source and survive very well with their "secret sauce" (usually GC related), such as Azul's Zing JVM. How does that work? Even if code is GPL if you own it you can do what you want with it. That includes licensing it to someone under a _different_ licence. Being available under the GPL does not mean it can't also be available under another licence, such as a proprietary one. Which is what is done in this situation. > but it does redefine the choices to "clone software entirely" or "fork existing software and share changes" .. it removes the option of "fork existing software and DON'T share changes" None of this is true.

ece 6y ago
This is all conditional on Oracle actually giving others a proprietary license like Azul received. Oracle can say no, and in this case they might actually have given that it's ARM and not some proprietary chip that only Azul makes and sells AFAIK. There are no such conditions if you want to port the GPL code.
cmeacham98 6y ago
My understanding is the part of OpenJDK Zing is based on is entirely owned by Oracle, so they can give Azul a license for it. Oracle could not do that for all of OpenJDK today unless OpenJDL has a super weird CLA that signs away ownership of the code because they do not own all of the code.