7 ms·

I don't have anything against open core business models, but of all the companies to do it, I trust Oracle the least. You just know they've built every trap doo

I don't have anything against open core business models, but of all the companies to do it, I trust Oracle the least. You just know they've built every trap door that they can into it. Graal is a pretty awesome piece of technology, but I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

belter 5y ago
Agree. Its amazing technology in the hands of the worst possible company. It can run anything, JavaScript, Java, Rust. Every time I get to the download page, and despite all the claims around the Community edition OS licenses, it just reminds me who is behind it. I think the trick is that they might just drop their efforts behind the Community Edition anytime. The Open Source license its not a guarantee. Any Open Source team that would decide to pick up the engineering effort would have them coming around and claiming some kind of license infringement. Really a shame, actually.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Funnily enough, Oracle have been a very great steward of Java - they open sourced the whole thing completely for the first time, and it is under very heavy development once again. To be honest, I would be much more afraid of google touching an open source project for that matter - they have a much worse track record.
  - setr 5y ago
    The risk with google is they’ll drop maintaining the project. The risk with Oracle is they’ll break your legs, and ask to be reimbursed for damages to their bat.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      At least they know how to make something out of it, instead of putting another tombstone on the graveyard.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    > Oracle have been a very great steward of Java - they open sourced the whole thing completely And sued a company for doing their own implementation of Java...
    - Twirrim 5y ago
      The lawsuit came about from actions before Java was open source.
      - viraptor 5y ago
        It was about reimplemented API. Not being opensource doesn't change much there. It's just anti-competitive stance which doesn't make me go "they'll be great stewards of open source".
  - hajile 5y ago
    As I understand it, they only open-sourced because almost everyone saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately forked. It was simply open up or die.
  - antonvs 5y ago
    > To be honest, I would be much more afraid of google touching an open source project for that matter Google has thousands of open source projects, including the Chromium web browser, the Chromium operating system, the V8 Javascript engine that Node.js depends on, Kubernetes, Golang, the Android OSP, gRPC, Tensorflow, Authenticator (2FA), etc. The track record you're apparently referring to, of commercial products being discontinued, is not really that relevant to this. The issue in that case is that they are services that users come to depend on, and then are forced to switch away from. There's not really a comparable scenario in open source. The worst case is that the original sponsor stops paying for new development. If the project is viable enough, forks and other sponsors are likely to arise.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The licenses provide good protection. It's GPL2+Classpath Exception, or UPL, where UPL is basically an Apache like license but with a patent grant IIRC. So very liberal. They just got beaten in court by Google where Google literally cloned their entire product before it was open source, so it seems very unlikely they could play funny games with claiming license infringement on something they explicitly put under very liberal licenses, unless you actually do violate the GPL. The second thing there doesn't seem like a fair criticism of Oracle or any company really. Firstly any company can abandon stuff. There is no expectation that open sourcing something means funding it in perpetuity forever. Look at Google and Facebook, they abandon open source projects at a way higher rate than Oracle has ever done. And secondly Oracle have actually been very steady hands on the tiller of Java. GraalVM is a very long term project. More than a decade old now. They have been funding long term research programmes like Valhalla. They're still maintaining JavaFX and other large libraries, even when they didn't become super popular. Their attention span is way longer and more stable than the average tech company.
  - cxr 5y ago
    > UPL is basically an Apache like license but with a patent grant Apache contains a patent grant. > still maintaining JavaFX and other large libraries, even when they didn't become super popular They kept JavaFX proprietary for years before opening it up, and they only did so reluctantly—after it was obvious that it was a failure.
  - nwmcsween 5y ago
    Graal without enterprise features offers a 10% improvement with all the will-i-get-sued that comes with any product from Oracle; I would rather simmer in a vat of acid
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Huge numbers of companies use Oracle software and are never sued. Moreover Google wasn't using it, that was kind of the point - they were reimplementing it. There's a lot of over-generalization from a single case here.
suyash 5y ago
Your loss, it’s a pretty amazing technology and also totally available under friendly open source license.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  The problem with Java is that there's more to it than just the source code, and Oracle has demonstrated no qualms whatsoever about using essential but non-open-source parts of the Java ecosystem to push people around.
  - josefx 5y ago
    Which parts are "non-open-source" and "essential"?
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      The TCK is the really big one. It is not Free Software, and it more-or-less necessary to get a license for it in order to successfully maintain your own JVM. Look at what happened with Apache Harmony, for example. There are also some potential patent encumbrances? I know less about that. I also don't know for sure if IcedTea is still necessary to get a 100% open build of newer versions of Java (I'm still one of those incorrigible elements who's still on Java 8), but, at least historically, there was an appreciable chunk of the official OpenJDK distribution that was not, in actual fact, open.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - josefx 5y ago
        > Look at what happened with Apache Harmony, for example. It died the moment the OpenJDK was released 14 years ago? The issue wasn't the TCK itself, as far as I understand Sun just didn't want to license any Java implementation that could cut into its embedded market and dragged its feet when the community requested an out for the Apache licensed Harmony project. The TCK now seems to be available for any OpenJDK derived implementation[1] in case you want to use official Java trademarks for your implementation. > I also don't know for sure if IcedTea is still necessary to get a 100% open build of newer versions of Java I can't actually find anything about IcedTea for any recent OpenJDK, but its wiki page[2] seems to hint at the IcedTea patches were merged back into OpenJDK. Debian and other free software distros also seem fine with distributing current OpenJDK versions instead of reviving gcj to torment their users. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Compatibility_Kit#TCK_for_the_Java_platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Compatibility_Kit#T... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IcedTea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IcedTea
geodel 5y ago
Thats fine. For independent developers there is not much use of it. For enterprise types Oracle would reach folks who pay for licenses instead of hordes of JIRA slaves.
pjmlp 5y ago
> 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux Also if the same morals apply to the remaining contributors of the Linux kernel, better not use it. There are a few other ones that seat at Oracle table, so to speak. https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > Also if the same morals apply to the remaining contributors of the Linux kernel, better not use it. Your parent said: "[Oracle has] built every trap door that they can into it". Oracle doesn't control what goes into Linux; they can only propose, it's Linus who controls what goes in. So your claim that Linux suffers from a similar risk because Oracle et. al. contribute to it is invalid. Contribution != Control
- darksaints 5y ago
  What a completely disingenuous argument. Oracle never held the sole copyright on Linux, never controlled Linux, nor was it ever a significant contributor to Linux. There was never any threat that Oracle would take Linux closed source and start charging you for it after you've built significant infrastructure on it. There's a reason you have to give Oracle joint copyright ownership if you contribute to GraalVM. They want to be able to close the source and sell it.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    > They want to be able to close the source and sell it. What a completely disingenuous argument without any concrete facts. Also, you can’t close source something with a permissive dual license.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      Yes, you can. The copyright owner always has that right...which is why Oracle now requires all contributors to assign joint copyright ownership of their code to Oracle. In fact, the only reason you would need copyright ownership of contributor code is to reserve the right to change the licensing. Oracle wanted to do it with MySQL, but their lack of copyright ownership for some parts of a GPL-ed MySQL codebase made it impossible. They fixed that mistake with their new contributor agreement, ensuring that they always have control over your code if you contribute.
14u2c 5y ago
I think the robustness of the JVM ecosystem makes this less of a concern. It should be of relativity little cost to switch back to HotSpot if Oracle acts up.

belter 5y ago

Agree. Its amazing technology in the hands of the worst possible company. It can run anything, JavaScript, Java, Rust. Every time I get to the download page, and despite all the claims around the Community edition OS licenses, it just reminds me who is behind it. I think the trick is that they might just drop their efforts behind the Community Edition anytime. The Open Source license its not a guarantee. Any Open Source team that would decide to pick up the engineering effort would have them coming around and claiming some kind of license infringement. Really a shame, actually.

kaba0 5y ago
Funnily enough, Oracle have been a very great steward of Java - they open sourced the whole thing completely for the first time, and it is under very heavy development once again. To be honest, I would be much more afraid of google touching an open source project for that matter - they have a much worse track record.
- setr 5y ago
  The risk with google is they’ll drop maintaining the project. The risk with Oracle is they’ll break your legs, and ask to be reimbursed for damages to their bat.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    At least they know how to make something out of it, instead of putting another tombstone on the graveyard.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > Oracle have been a very great steward of Java - they open sourced the whole thing completely And sued a company for doing their own implementation of Java...
  - Twirrim 5y ago
    The lawsuit came about from actions before Java was open source.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      It was about reimplemented API. Not being opensource doesn't change much there. It's just anti-competitive stance which doesn't make me go "they'll be great stewards of open source".
- hajile 5y ago
  As I understand it, they only open-sourced because almost everyone saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately forked. It was simply open up or die.
- antonvs 5y ago
  > To be honest, I would be much more afraid of google touching an open source project for that matter Google has thousands of open source projects, including the Chromium web browser, the Chromium operating system, the V8 Javascript engine that Node.js depends on, Kubernetes, Golang, the Android OSP, gRPC, Tensorflow, Authenticator (2FA), etc. The track record you're apparently referring to, of commercial products being discontinued, is not really that relevant to this. The issue in that case is that they are services that users come to depend on, and then are forced to switch away from. There's not really a comparable scenario in open source. The worst case is that the original sponsor stops paying for new development. If the project is viable enough, forks and other sponsors are likely to arise.
native_samples 5y ago
The licenses provide good protection. It's GPL2+Classpath Exception, or UPL, where UPL is basically an Apache like license but with a patent grant IIRC. So very liberal. They just got beaten in court by Google where Google literally cloned their entire product before it was open source, so it seems very unlikely they could play funny games with claiming license infringement on something they explicitly put under very liberal licenses, unless you actually do violate the GPL. The second thing there doesn't seem like a fair criticism of Oracle or any company really. Firstly any company can abandon stuff. There is no expectation that open sourcing something means funding it in perpetuity forever. Look at Google and Facebook, they abandon open source projects at a way higher rate than Oracle has ever done. And secondly Oracle have actually been very steady hands on the tiller of Java. GraalVM is a very long term project. More than a decade old now. They have been funding long term research programmes like Valhalla. They're still maintaining JavaFX and other large libraries, even when they didn't become super popular. Their attention span is way longer and more stable than the average tech company.
- cxr 5y ago
  > UPL is basically an Apache like license but with a patent grant Apache contains a patent grant. > still maintaining JavaFX and other large libraries, even when they didn't become super popular They kept JavaFX proprietary for years before opening it up, and they only did so reluctantly—after it was obvious that it was a failure.
- nwmcsween 5y ago
  Graal without enterprise features offers a 10% improvement with all the will-i-get-sued that comes with any product from Oracle; I would rather simmer in a vat of acid
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Huge numbers of companies use Oracle software and are never sued. Moreover Google wasn't using it, that was kind of the point - they were reimplementing it. There's a lot of over-generalization from a single case here.

suyash 5y ago

Your loss, it’s a pretty amazing technology and also totally available under friendly open source license.

mumblemumble 5y ago
The problem with Java is that there's more to it than just the source code, and Oracle has demonstrated no qualms whatsoever about using essential but non-open-source parts of the Java ecosystem to push people around.
- josefx 5y ago
  Which parts are "non-open-source" and "essential"?
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    The TCK is the really big one. It is not Free Software, and it more-or-less necessary to get a license for it in order to successfully maintain your own JVM. Look at what happened with Apache Harmony, for example. There are also some potential patent encumbrances? I know less about that. I also don't know for sure if IcedTea is still necessary to get a 100% open build of newer versions of Java (I'm still one of those incorrigible elements who's still on Java 8), but, at least historically, there was an appreciable chunk of the official OpenJDK distribution that was not, in actual fact, open.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - josefx 5y ago
      > Look at what happened with Apache Harmony, for example. It died the moment the OpenJDK was released 14 years ago? The issue wasn't the TCK itself, as far as I understand Sun just didn't want to license any Java implementation that could cut into its embedded market and dragged its feet when the community requested an out for the Apache licensed Harmony project. The TCK now seems to be available for any OpenJDK derived implementation[1] in case you want to use official Java trademarks for your implementation. > I also don't know for sure if IcedTea is still necessary to get a 100% open build of newer versions of Java I can't actually find anything about IcedTea for any recent OpenJDK, but its wiki page[2] seems to hint at the IcedTea patches were merged back into OpenJDK. Debian and other free software distros also seem fine with distributing current OpenJDK versions instead of reviving gcj to torment their users. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Compatibility_Kit#TCK_for_the_Java_platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Compatibility_Kit#T... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IcedTea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IcedTea

geodel 5y ago

Thats fine. For independent developers there is not much use of it. For enterprise types Oracle would reach folks who pay for licenses instead of hordes of JIRA slaves.

pjmlp 5y ago

> 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux Also if the same morals apply to the remaining contributors of the Linux kernel, better not use it. There are a few other ones that seat at Oracle table, so to speak. https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/

pritambaral 5y ago
> Also if the same morals apply to the remaining contributors of the Linux kernel, better not use it. Your parent said: "[Oracle has] built every trap door that they can into it". Oracle doesn't control what goes into Linux; they can only propose, it's Linus who controls what goes in. So your claim that Linux suffers from a similar risk because Oracle et. al. contribute to it is invalid. Contribution != Control
darksaints 5y ago
What a completely disingenuous argument. Oracle never held the sole copyright on Linux, never controlled Linux, nor was it ever a significant contributor to Linux. There was never any threat that Oracle would take Linux closed source and start charging you for it after you've built significant infrastructure on it. There's a reason you have to give Oracle joint copyright ownership if you contribute to GraalVM. They want to be able to close the source and sell it.
- kaba0 5y ago
  > They want to be able to close the source and sell it. What a completely disingenuous argument without any concrete facts. Also, you can’t close source something with a permissive dual license.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    Yes, you can. The copyright owner always has that right...which is why Oracle now requires all contributors to assign joint copyright ownership of their code to Oracle. In fact, the only reason you would need copyright ownership of contributor code is to reserve the right to change the licensing. Oracle wanted to do it with MySQL, but their lack of copyright ownership for some parts of a GPL-ed MySQL codebase made it impossible. They fixed that mistake with their new contributor agreement, ensuring that they always have control over your code if you contribute.

14u2c 5y ago

I think the robustness of the JVM ecosystem makes this less of a concern. It should be of relativity little cost to switch back to HotSpot if Oracle acts up.