191–200 of 244 posts
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.
Earlier 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.
The Oracle license police live for situations like this.
p.s., If it's just personal use you are within the terms of the license.
Earlier 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.
They haven't been doing that with JDK licenses, so far -- as long as Java had licenses which didn't allow for this kind of gamesmanship. But now that the license has changed, it's a completely legitimate thing to get worried about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, many people add a repository with Oracle JDK to their package managers and install the JDK from there, due to some perceived better compatibility and/or extra bug fixes. (And in my experience, this is true for the Java plugin; the "official" plugin seems to work better than the IcedTea plugin.)
JavaFX is difficult to use under OpenJDK. I think it has become a library on Java 11, so at least that's a step in the right direction.
This is not new, and as per: https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... it was put in place in 2017 already. Seeing that the "LICENSE" of Java 8 simply points to their website, it means that they effectively changed it for Java 8 as well. So that means that even if you're running Java, you have three options: (1) Continue using it illegally, it will probably be a low risk. This is not advisable e…
How is this possible? I have an app that runs in the JVM which is also bundled with a JRE in some platforms. Does this mean that I cannot freely distribute it anymore?
This is not new, and as per: https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license... it was put in place in 2017 already. Seeing that the "LICENSE" of Java 8 simply points to their website, it means that they effectively changed it for Java 8 as well. So that means that even if you're running Java, you have three options: (1) Continue using it illegally, it will probably be a low risk. This is not advisable e…
The situation is confusing but not that confusing. Java 8 has commercial features that are locked by default. You can unlock them by passing a command line flag that looks like -XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures, so pretty hard to miss. If you use those in production, you're meant to pay. But virtually nobody does use them. In fact Oracle open sourced them all for Java 11, perhaps because of that fact. Now in Java 11 ther…
So no, OpenJDK by itself is not suitable for production use. To put a Java app in production securely you now need to either pay Oracle or find someone to provide security fixes to OpenJDK beyond what Oracle provides for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation is confusing but not that confusing. Java 8 has commercial features that are locked by default. You can unlock them by passing a command line flag that looks like -XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures, so pretty hard to miss. If you use those in production, you're meant to pay. But virtually nobody does use them. In fact Oracle open sourced them all for Java 11, perhaps because of that fact. Now in Java 11 ther…
The difference is that OpenJDK N will stop receiving security fixes the moment OpenJDK (N+1) is released. LTS releases are only LTS for Oracle JDK. So no, OpenJDK by itself is not suitable for production use. To put a Java app in production securely you now need to either pay Oracle or find someone to provide security fixes to OpenJDK beyond what Oracle provides for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that any different than updating a Go app? If a security issue arises in an older version of Go, it doesn’t magically fix in your app until you recompile it. Java also has a multi decade history of remaining backwards compatible across major version upgrades. Barring known exceptions for things explicitly being removed, I don’t see that changing.
Having an statically linked a.out which depends only on ABI is such a bliss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They won't be coming for you. What prevents you from blocking outgoing telemetry?
It's also social media.
Online surveys.
Everybody and your servers needs to keep mum about it or otherwise you'll get a call.
You think I'm making this up? I've worked at two places where we were in contact with Oracle police because they thought we used (more of) their software.