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

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.