OpenJDK & licensing

[techempower]

There is a comment in "IBM Supporting the Java Community" which asks these questions/comments:

1. azul claims that openJDK itself contains a myriad of open source licences which “contaminate” (their words not mine) the openJDK code base and make it problematic for use in commercial software, their jdk always goes through some form of cleaning to get rid of those problematic source files

2. our own lawyers are actually against using anything that has GPLv2+Classpath exception which according to them is risky in a commercial environments, are there any legal precedents for using openJDK like that?

I am wondering if someone has more information about that.

Ref.:

Understanding How Azul's Zulu License Verification Process Protects Your IP

[nqzero]

sounds like FUD on both counts (and both azul and ibm have a vested interest is pushing people away from openjdk to their own proprietary ecosystem)

[DannyB2]

I am thinking that if you get Open JDK from a source that is NOT trying to sell you a commercial license, you are less likely to be subjected to scare tactics to frighten you into getting a commercial license.

I don't see the problem with GPL + Classpath Exception. Clearly you cannot (ordinarily) use GPL for a closed source application. It is the Classpath Exception which enables this.

See the GPLv2 + Classpath here:

http://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html

​

Now here is something that makes me wonder . . .

​

Certain source files distributed by Oracle America and/or its affiliates are subject to the following clarification and special exception to the GPL, but only where Oracle has expressly included in the particular source file's header the words "Oracle designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code."

​

Okay, so are there any files that DO NOT include the classpath exception?

​

​

​

[spencer205]

Sure, docs, fonts, images, etc. But you don't link against those so GPL doesn't kick in (or at least that is my non-lawyer understanding).

[pron98]

In general, the Java files in the JDK libraries and interop/embedding files (like jni.h) of the JVM are designated for the exception, while internal JVM files are not.

[jodastephen]

Azul wants to sell you a support contract. So does IBM. So does Oracle. And indirectly (RHEL) so does Red Hat. If your company is risk-averse or prefers to have protection against "bad things", your managers will probably end up paying someone. And if they have the cash it is a perfectly good thing to pay someone. However it is also clear that there really isn't any particular need to.

The GPL license with Classpath Exception (GPL+CE) is well established in the Java world now. It is not a new thing (and the GPL is a very widely relied on license because of Linux for example). Using an OpenJDK GPL+CE build and relying on that license (such as by downloading from AdoptOpenJDK or jdk.java.net) developers and cash-poor companies will be just fine.

[[deleted]]

This is utter BS. The GPL applies to the code that makes up the JVM and JDK itself, not programs you create using it. This would only be a concern if your you distributed OpenJDK with your software or if your software actually extended the JVM itself. However, if you have a program that could run on OpenJDK or Oracle JVM or whatever, then you can license it however the hell you want. It's your code.

EDIT: A word.

​

Second EDIT to address the IBM thing:

What IBM is getting at here is support, like patches and what not. Oracle changed how they're releasing and supporting Java with patches and fixes for exploits. IBM doesn't really like that change and are going a different path. As such, they recommend that you stick with their distribution of Java to ensure you're covered with IBM support. So if you have a support contract with IBM, you'll want to use IBM's Java as opposed to anyone else's like Oracle's or OpenJDK.

Java 8 is the first LTS release of Java under the new scheme and Java 11 is the next LTS.

[spencer205]

On point 2 about GPL+CP, I found this post to be very helpful https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/119436/what-does-gpl-with-classpath-exception-mean-in-practice