Wow, this is a frightening change. And at the same time, it's exactly what you would expect of Oracle. They have already sued companies for using parts of the JDK which were sneakily covered under...
Wow, this is a frightening change. And at the same time, it's exactly what you would expect of Oracle. They have already sued companies for using parts of the JDK which were sneakily covered under a different license from the rest of it.
There are a lot of evil technology companies out there, but there is none so obvious about it as Oracle is.
That's been true for a long time. I worked for Oracle a decade ago and a relative of mine got mad at me because he got caught in this exact same trap (but for DBs). The Oracle strategy: Put out...
That's been true for a long time. I worked for Oracle a decade ago and a relative of mine got mad at me because he got caught in this exact same trap (but for DBs).
The Oracle strategy: Put out software for "free", people build their tech on top of it, then fleece them once they're trapped.
To be fair, the only reason why this kind of business model thrives is because of how bad the management around enterprise software tends to be. An employee can sing the praises of Postgres until...
To be fair, the only reason why this kind of business model thrives is because of how bad the management around enterprise software tends to be. An employee can sing the praises of Postgres until they run out of air, but there will always be that idiot manager who drinks the Oracle salesman's kool-ade.
To be fair, they have large yellow warning above the download links, with link to OpenJDK. I don't think Oracle deserves hate for this. It is announced on the download page, so it wasn't some...
To be fair, they have large yellow warning above the download links, with link to OpenJDK. I don't think Oracle deserves hate for this. It is announced on the download page, so it wasn't some weird stealthy move.
I didn't find this on my own, this is comment from HN (actually the top comment). Reddit discussion (top comment mentions the warning as well).
I even checked the internet archive if Oracle didn't add the warning retroactively. It was there when Stephen Colebourne published the article.
Although they definitely make it obvious that the license has changed, they're still banking on the fact that most people just aren't going to give a damn and will assume that the changes are...
it wasn't some weird stealthy move.
Although they definitely make it obvious that the license has changed, they're still banking on the fact that most people just aren't going to give a damn and will assume that the changes are minor/unimportant ones. Your average person is just going to download the JDK anyway without thinking about it. That one extra click and the additional effort are barriers that anyone with any substantial tech experience could tell you would be completely ignored by most people. They really should have explicitly stated within the warning itself that commercial use is now forbidden, rather than solely adding those additional barriers.
Note the replies in that HN thread you linked to, and in the reddit discussion. They echo that very same sentiment.
Yes, I agree. But I think when you're in company and deciding to use new software, you should check the license - especially when there is big warning that it changed a lot. The line about...
Your average person is just going to download the JDK anyway without thinking about it.
Yes, I agree. But I think when you're in company and deciding to use new software, you should check the license - especially when there is big warning that it changed a lot. The line about forbidding the JDK is the first point in the licence, average person should notice it even when just skimming through the article.
I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of mental fatigue, general apathy, and heavy-handed management in the tech industry. Apart from that, you're also suggesting (intentionally or...
Exemplary
But I think when you're in company and deciding to use new software, you should check the license - especially when there is big warning that it changed a lot.
I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of mental fatigue, general apathy, and heavy-handed management in the tech industry. Apart from that, you're also suggesting (intentionally or not) that a tech company (Oracle) should assume that users won't be lazy or do something stupid. More importantly, you're focusing too much on "should" and conflating that with "will". I don't mean this in an accusatory way, I just want to emphasize one really important point: Everyone knows that people generally don't read license agreements. It's such common knowledge that it's a meme. It's such a common piece of knowledge that South Park parodied it. It doesn't matter if you're working for a well-establish tech company, working at a startup, or just working on a personal project that you feel like you can make some money with--there's a pretty good chance that you're not going to read the license agreement.
The line about forbidding the JDK is the first point in the licence. . .
I would like to emphasize that, more accurately, it's the first bullet point under the "License Rights and Restrictions" section following three prior paragraphs of legalize. It's a relatively minor distinction, but still an important one. It's nice of them to make it the first bullet point and to place it in the first section following the standard initial set of definitions for the document, I'm giving them good marks for that. Even so, they're still relying on someone actually wading through the legalize in the first place.
While I get where you're coming from, you're talking about an ideal situation in which all people are rational and responsible at all times, whereas the reality is far different from that. The burden is thus not on the users to be primarily responsible, but on the company.
Wow, this is a frightening change. And at the same time, it's exactly what you would expect of Oracle. They have already sued companies for using parts of the JDK which were sneakily covered under a different license from the rest of it.
There are a lot of evil technology companies out there, but there is none so obvious about it as Oracle is.
Oracle is more of a litigation company with a tech department than the reverse these days.
That's been true for a long time. I worked for Oracle a decade ago and a relative of mine got mad at me because he got caught in this exact same trap (but for DBs).
The Oracle strategy: Put out software for "free", people build their tech on top of it, then fleece them once they're trapped.
To be fair, the only reason why this kind of business model thrives is because of how bad the management around enterprise software tends to be. An employee can sing the praises of Postgres until they run out of air, but there will always be that idiot manager who drinks the Oracle salesman's kool-ade.
To be fair, they have large yellow warning above the download links, with link to OpenJDK. I don't think Oracle deserves hate for this. It is announced on the download page, so it wasn't some weird stealthy move.
I didn't find this on my own, this is comment from HN (actually the top comment). Reddit discussion (top comment mentions the warning as well).
I even checked the internet archive if Oracle didn't add the warning retroactively. It was there when Stephen Colebourne published the article.
Although they definitely make it obvious that the license has changed, they're still banking on the fact that most people just aren't going to give a damn and will assume that the changes are minor/unimportant ones. Your average person is just going to download the JDK anyway without thinking about it. That one extra click and the additional effort are barriers that anyone with any substantial tech experience could tell you would be completely ignored by most people. They really should have explicitly stated within the warning itself that commercial use is now forbidden, rather than solely adding those additional barriers.
Note the replies in that HN thread you linked to, and in the reddit discussion. They echo that very same sentiment.
This was a deliberate decision.
Yes, I agree. But I think when you're in company and deciding to use new software, you should check the license - especially when there is big warning that it changed a lot. The line about forbidding the JDK is the first point in the licence, average person should notice it even when just skimming through the article.
I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of mental fatigue, general apathy, and heavy-handed management in the tech industry. Apart from that, you're also suggesting (intentionally or not) that a tech company (Oracle) should assume that users won't be lazy or do something stupid. More importantly, you're focusing too much on "should" and conflating that with "will". I don't mean this in an accusatory way, I just want to emphasize one really important point: Everyone knows that people generally don't read license agreements. It's such common knowledge that it's a meme. It's such a common piece of knowledge that South Park parodied it. It doesn't matter if you're working for a well-establish tech company, working at a startup, or just working on a personal project that you feel like you can make some money with--there's a pretty good chance that you're not going to read the license agreement.
I would like to emphasize that, more accurately, it's the first bullet point under the "License Rights and Restrictions" section following three prior paragraphs of legalize. It's a relatively minor distinction, but still an important one. It's nice of them to make it the first bullet point and to place it in the first section following the standard initial set of definitions for the document, I'm giving them good marks for that. Even so, they're still relying on someone actually wading through the legalize in the first place.
While I get where you're coming from, you're talking about an ideal situation in which all people are rational and responsible at all times, whereas the reality is far different from that. The burden is thus not on the users to be primarily responsible, but on the company.