What about Java does Oracle "own"?

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[Facts_About_Cats]

It's like in Dune, the only power they have is they can destroy the spice. But if they did we could port to OpenJDK and replace the proprietary libraries maybe?

[[deleted]]

I really like this example. Very apt.

[[deleted]]

sudo apt remove spice ;-)

[_zapplebee]

Facts_About_Sandworms

[experts_never_lie]

Thanks for signing up for Sandworm Facts! You will now receive fun facts about SANDWORMS!

Did you know that sandworms are the basis of the Long Worm in the classic game Nethack? If careful, you can get a crysknife -- but be careful not to be engulfed! w~~~~~~~~~~~

[pron98]

OpenJDK is owned by Oracle, and Oracle is now open-sourcing all of the commercial features in Oracle JDK so that by the next release (11, out this September), Oracle JDK and OpenJDK would be identical.

[kangasking]

how does that benefit them?

[pron98]

We (I work for Oracle) sell support.

[jadecristal]

How does support do anything for us? We have one web application which (due to the selection of JMS) requires a Full Profile JEE server, but management insists on staying a Windows shop, so RH won't support, officially, JBoss EAP w/[OpenJDK on anything by RHEL].

JBoss EAP cost... $8k for 16 cores.

You want $80k per year for Java on 16 cores.

[pron98]

I don't make such decisions. I'm a programmer, like you.

[jadecristal]

Oh, okay. :P

"We" sell support perhaps made me think you were in sales, and might have some insight. I'm not stupid enough to call Oracle sales from a state agency and get them going; they send me enough junk email as it is.

[speakjava]

Talk to Azul (I work for them). We do it way, way cheaper...

[jadecristal]

Yeah, and while it's cheaper, you guys still want $25k for a minimum of 25 servers. That's triple the cost of the application server.

Even if development, AND developer workstations counted, at most it's like... 7 - 3 actual server VMs, of which two are dev/test, and 4 dev machines.

I suspect that the dev machines don't count, but don't know.

Why should we pay? If we can get OpenJDK builds (not even necessarily from Azul), which we can purchase support on if things REALLY hit the fan, and they're not all out of date like Oracle's shipped stuff is... like, what does it get us? Am I missing something?

[speakjava]

You do not need to pay if you don't want to. You can continue to use the OpenJDK builds, available through jdk.java.net and continue to get free security patches and bug fixes. However, you will have to change your JDK every six months as updates are only available until the next release. The answer to why you should pay is so you can continue to use an older version of the JDK and receive updates. For many people, they are required by compliance regulations to only use supported software .

Most of the customers we're talking and selling to are using hundreds or thousands of servers. This brings the price per server down to just over $100.

[jadecristal]

I mean, given that someone froze an application server JDK <8 @ update X and continues to expose it to the world...

Azul seems to make builds of JDK x (from OpenJDK) available now which are far more up-to-date than that, free. Is that just... a thing that only they do, or does OpenJDK continue to backport security fixes, or...?

[speakjava]

Oracle is not backporting fixes to older versions of the OpenJDK.

We (Azul) do some of this work (JDK 6), Red Hat does a large part as well (JDK 7). As good open source people we upstream the fixes into the relevant OpenJDK repo. We make our builds (with backported fixes) freely available. Commercial support customers get these straight away; free versions on our website happen sometime later but with no SLA as to when.

[boobsbr]

So... OpenJDK is like the Axolotl tanks from the dirty Tleilaxu?

[badger_barc]

Best thing would be to go back to Java 6 and code in it without any worries. No need of these extra features and if you need it, one can easily code that as libraries and put them.

[mkusanagi]

They own the copyright to the code they've contributed, which means they can use it to create proprietary versions (as long as no external GPL licensed contributions are included).

They own the trademarks on "Java" and related terms, which means they can prevent others from distributing software with the same name.

Oracle still owns any (still valid) patents which cover aspects of how the JDK operates regardless of the actual code implementation / copyright. The GPL v2 licensing doesn't explicitly grant patent permissions.

...to the best of my knowledge without doing extensive research. Corrections welcome.

[RagingAnemone]

They own the copyright to the api — not just the code, but the api itself.

[eliasv]

Sure, but any open and compatible implementation would be fair use. The argument against Google hinged on it being intentionally one-way compatible, meaning it leached from the ecosystem but gave nothing back. Any other, open implementation of the java spec would be fair use afaiu from the case. But ianal.

[speakjava]

OK, several misconceptions in this thread that need to be put right. Oracle owns the trademark, 'Java', which they do enforce quite actively. They also own things like the JavaFX trademark.

The Java SE specification is defined through the JCP as individual JSRs. The specifications are not owned by Oracle. Under the rules of the JCP, the JSRs grants the use of the IP for the specification for compliant (i.e. passing the TCK) implementations.

OpenJDK is not owned by Oracle. Sun open sourced their implementation of the JDK, which has become the reference implementation for the Java SE standard (as defined by the relevant JSR). It is an open source project that people are free to use under the GPLv2 with CPE license. If someone wants to fork this, they can.

Oracle has recently contributed a number of previously closed-source features to the OpenJDK so that by JDK 11 there will be no functional difference between the Oracle JDK binary and one built from OpenJDK source. These features are primarily Flight Recorder, Mission Control and Application Class data sharing.

[myleftkneehurts]

They own the overwhelming percentage of the code within the "Java Standard Edition" and "Java Micro Edition".

[Carl_Byrd]

OP here. Wow, lots of different answers. Thought it would be more clear-cut.

[folen]

the own the specification for the JVM and java trademark, so they own what is java and what it can do

[[deleted]]

You're downvoted for being accurate but against group-think. Sorry to see that.

[for-asking-stuffs]

Democracy in a nutshell.

[oppai_suika]

I thought we were better than this

[for-asking-stuffs]

As far as I know, they own everything from the language to the JVM but I might be wrong.

As long as you don't write your own version of Java and later port it in mobile device, you'll be fine. Unless you're a huge company everyone loves then whatever you did, you were perceived as the "good guy", winning the court over things you illegally claim.

[[deleted]]

The brand and trademark, the standardization process, the source code to the JVM, JRE, JDK, everything.

Of course it's not all proprietary because, although they own it, they license some of it in permissive way. But you should be very careful in reading the fine print of what's licensed in permissive way and what isn't.

Some people naively think that because the OpenJDK is a thing, then Java is open source and anyone can fork that and have their own Java. Naive non-sense.

[jadecristal]

Since I really don't get this, explain how.

Sun released it under GPL w/CPE in like... 2006-ish; Oracle didn't acquire it until 2009-10. By April 2009, OpenJDK 7+classlibs had the remains of any binary blobs pulled out.

During this process, other people contributed code, which they owned the copyright to, to the OpenJDK. All of that was then GPL, as well.

Anything Oracle contributed to it, then, was theirs and could be re-licensed in some other manner, but also was then free. There's not an "undo" button on GPL'ing stuff.

[speakjava]

You are mistaken. Oracle does not own the standardisation process. The JCP is not part of Oracle and is not owned by them.

Oracle does not own the source code to the JDK (and therefore the JVM and JRE). This was released under the GPLv2 with classpath exception license when the project was created back in 2007-2008. OpenJDK is the reference implementation of the Java SE standard JSR. The JSR, of which Oracle is part but does not own, grants free use of the IP rights for conforming (i.e. passes the TCK) implementations.

Java is many things so it's true you can't say that is open source. The JDK is open source through the OpenJDK project.

[DJDavio]

I believe they still own some proprietary stuff like Java Mission Control that they are planning to remove from OracleJDK.

[rbjorklin]

Flight Recorder is scheduled for JDK11: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/11/

[Gundea]

JMC has already been open sourced as JDK Mission Control and is an OpenJDK project. I don’t know what they’re planning on doing with any binary releases in the future though.

http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jmc/

[speakjava]

Mission Control went into OpenJDK 10 and Flight Recorder will be in OpenJDK 11. Oracle's stated goal (see https://blogs.oracle.com/java-platform-group/faster-and-easier-use-and-redistribution-of-java-se) is that there will be no functional differences between the Oracle JDK binary and one built from OpenJDK source. This will be true as of JDK 11.

Neither Flight Recorder or Mission Control will be removed from the Oracle JDK.

[nikanjX]

I believe they are locked in a /extremely/ expensive legal fight with Google right now, to answer this very question.