Java 11? At work we haven't even started to look at the migration from Java 8...
We are migrating from Java 8 to Typescript. Yeah a rewrite.
Oracle’s Java 11 trap
141–150 of 244 posts
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...
There's no "long legalese." The new license ( https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... ) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure F…
[deleted]
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#143Is this actually a trap? The "trap" page has a huge warning section that clearly tells you license has substantially changed and how to get open JDK, and what license it has. > With JDK 11 Oracle has updated the license terms on which we offer the Oracle JDK. The new Oracle Technology Network License Agreement for Oracle Java SE is substantially different from the licenses under which previous versions of the JDK wer…
Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...
It's just another license to ignore. I'll personally do whatever I want regardless of what is in the EULA.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...
There's no "long legalese." The new license ( https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... ) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure F…
What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "long legalese." The new license ( https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... ) is very clear. It states in plain English: "Further, You may not: use the Programs for any data processing or any commercial, production, or internal business purposes other than developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating your Application;". How is that not clear? This entire article is just pure F…
What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for .
Not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the clause state you can develop an application, but cannot run it in production/sell it.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is that not clear? You'd think it's clear, and yet I've joined projects where software with such terms was included in production builds because "it was downloaded with npm so it's open source."
Huge difference legally between running: npm install package And having a user certify that they read a license agreement. I'll leave it to lawyers to talk about whether a user actually agrees to a license when they run "npm install", but Oracle's site at least requires the user to accept the license agreement by physically clicking a button. And I've worked at a lot of companies that drill into you that you do not c…
I get your point, but npm has the same issue even if you didn't accept the license. I mean, if you didn't accept the license that it comes with, then what license gives you a right to use it at all?
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's unclear to me is how I would be running afoul of the licensing terms if I used the non-free version of the JDK to develop Java software. Because "developing, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating [my] Application" is exactly what I'd be using the JDK for .
Not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the clause state you can develop an application, but cannot run it in production/sell it.
Not a lawyer either, but the license says that the "Programs" (meaning the JDK) may only be used for these purposes. Once I write my application, it will be running on the JRE, not the JDK.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just made it TO Java 8.
Java 8 is EOL in January for public support/security patches. Java 7 was EOL in 2015. What have you been doing for 3 years? I could guess, because I've been at companies doing the same. Active development and support on the product, but no time for tech debt. Java 9 and up I understand people getting frustrated with a more frequent LTS release and these weird microreleases every year.
There are still plenty of systems out there on Java 7, usually due to external dependencies.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everybody reads warnings. Many will go to that page and just go straight to the download. In addition, the warning doesn't say "not for commercial use" - you have to click through and read a long legalese to find it. Oracle could still choose to make it clearer...
It's just another license to ignore. I'll personally do whatever I want regardless of what is in the EULA.
Not sure where you live or what sort of company you work for but in my country & our company we cannot just have a fuck all attitude towards software licenses.
Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huge difference legally between running: npm install package And having a user certify that they read a license agreement. I'll leave it to lawyers to talk about whether a user actually agrees to a license when they run "npm install", but Oracle's site at least requires the user to accept the license agreement by physically clicking a button. And I've worked at a lot of companies that drill into you that you do not c…
I get your point, but npm has the same issue even if you didn't accept the license. I mean, if you didn't accept the license that it comes with, then what license gives you a right to use it at all?
IMO, there's an argument that you implicitly license others in making your code available in a package manager such as NPM which requires no authentication or license clickthrough to incorporate code in your project, unlike the .net or other PMs where license terms are presented and require click-through agreement.
Not saying anyone should stake any bets on that argument winning, just that it wouldn't likely be summarily dismissed in court and would at the very least factor into the damages calculation.
Will be interesting to see if any cases like this ever get adjudicated and precedent set.