Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle’s Java 11 trap

blog.joda.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 244 posts

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#161

Post by admax88q »

StreamBright wrote: post #152
dnomad wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that possible? Are you going to the Oracle download page and downloading the RPMs? Are you specifically adding a repository that includes Oracle software? There are certainly no default repositories that include this code. The whole point (and it's been this way for years) is that you can't download the Oracle jdk without clicking through a license.

New JRE/JDK gets released -> somebody from our company goes and downloads the RPM after accepting the license -> she uploads the RPM into our internal repository -> somebody from another department changes the build scripts to use the new JRE/JDK -> few minutes later we are running the dev clusters with the new JRE/JDK. In this process the person who downloads the new RPM (aka me) has to be 100% sure that the new JDK…

Sounds like your company needs a better processes on how proprietary code is distributed internally. Most companies have a review process for thins like this.

The download page [1] has a large bold warning that the license terms have changed. What else would you like them to do?

[1] - https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk...

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#162

Post by marcosdumay »

bimbam wrote: post #80

I believe the article is mistaken. Their License says: >"Program(s)" refers to Oracle software provided by Oracle pursuant to this Agreement and any updates, error corrections, and/or Program Documentation provided by Oracle. Not programs you create using the JDK

So, when one reads unclear language from the part of Oracle, one does not interpret it in the most antagonistic way possible?

Has Oracle been restructured recently, or are you expecting me to ignore the entire company's history?

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#163

Post by paulie_a »

StreamBright wrote: post #149
paulie_a wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The USA and I've been doing it for two decades, honestly copyrights and licenses are not important to me. I have taken a fuck all attitude without consequence and will continue to do so forever.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#164

Post by grogenaut »

doodpants wrote: post #147
marcolussetti wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Iirc there is no jre in 11, just jdk, also Oracle is not dumb they likely have a clause covering your "loophole". Finally why would you develop on Oracle jdk and run on open. Seems like an easy way to get bugs.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#165

Post by paulie_a »

ballenf wrote: post #156
paulie_a wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just another license to ignore. I'll personally do whatever I want regardless of what is in the EULA.

The moral argument that code should not be restrained by artificial license, like we treat ideas, is a strong one but not made clearly here. If code was treated more like ideas or recipes we'd all still have jobs. If you believe that strongly enough, civil disobedience through ignoring licenses is one approach. No one should risk more than they're willing to lose on the position because you will lose if it's costing…

It's not an act of civil disobedience. I just flat out give a shit. Also apparently I don't need to.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#166

Post by ptx »

electrotype wrote: post #19

An interesting thing about AdoptOpenJDK is that it seems they may provide builds with DCEVM + HotswapAgent integrated, in the future [0]! And maybe become a very good and easy to use alternative to the way too expensive JRebel. [0] https://github.com/HotswapProjects/HotswapAgent/issues/218#i...

That's great news! Properly working code reloading would improve the development experience enormously.

Why wouldn't it be integrated directly in the upstream OpenJDK source, though? It sounds like it would be a separate patched build that I'd have to download, and wouldn't be available if I just "apt-get install openjdk-11-jdk" in Debian?

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#167

Post by grogenaut »

StreamBright wrote: post #97
unmole wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone installing JDK via a package manager would be installing the GPL version.

Absolutely not. We are installing via a package manager the Oracle issued RPM for example. I would have missed the licensing story if Joda was not writing an article about it.

The new Java has telemetry. Oracle will be coming for you. One of the reasons we don't run it is so we don't send them telemetry from prod... Nor so that we have a risk of the telemetry send breaking prod.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#168

Post by mcguire »

jodastephen wrote: post #87
paradite wrote: post #78

Is 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...

Many people are very used to clicking through Oracle's tedious licensing maze to download previous JDKs.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#169

Post by mcguire »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #110
LaGrange wrote: post #105

Earlier 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…

But you've had approval from legal the last 27 times you downloaded the Oracle JDK.

Re: Oracle’s Java 11 trap

#170

Post by misabon »

paulie_a wrote: post #163
StreamBright wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The USA and I've been doing it for two decades, honestly copyrights and licenses are not important to me. I have taken a fuck all attitude without consequence and will continue to do so forever.

Haha the plethora of GPL violations that exist without consequence sort of illustrate your point quite well.
Post reply on HN