
Java SE 8 business users must buy a licence from Jan 2019 to receive updates - stedaniels
https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3030652/oracle-java-se-8-business-users-must-buy-a-licence-from-january-next-year
======
0xFFC
I don’t understand the backlash for this. It seems people do react without
investigating the issue when they hear Oracle name.

What it is really happening is really simple. And I think acceptable approach.
Think about how redhat company controls Redhat (distribution) and Fedora.

Fedora is free. It will get updated. Redhat (company) is the real power behind
Fedora. But it does not have any enterprise support. You want enterprise
support, buy Redhat subscription. And it is not like Fedora does not get
security update. It gets and it is very effective.

The same relation is going to happen with Oracle Java SE and OpenJDK.

Openjdk is free. It will get updated. Oracle is the real power behind Openjdk.
But it does not have any enterprise support. You want enterprise support, buy
OracleJdk subscription. And it is not like Openjdk does not get security
update. It gets and it is very effective.

~~~
the_grue
This is not about enterprise support. It's about security fixes and bugfixes.
If you're a business, you will have to pay for these fixes or roll with their
6-months release cycle. Selling security fixes is quite unprecedented for a
project of this scale. Furthermore, it emphasizes Oracle's power over its
users, and let's not forget that these users are sometimes as big or bigger as
Oracle itself (IBM and Google to name a couple). So they could potentially
organize and take over stewardship of the project to ensure that no drastic
changes of this sort will ever happen again. I don't see any reason not to. As
far as I can tell, the reason Oracle is the sole maintainer of Java is mainly
historical (Sun legacy) and because no one felt an urge to do anything about
it before. I'm sure it's going to change now.

~~~
peoplewindow
How is selling security fixes unprecedented? That's basically the entire Red
Hat business model in the early years - yes the fixes are "free" if you want
to spend all your time downloading and recompiling software, or you can buy
RHEL and get a steady stream of backported fixes to your server for years. But
it'll cost you.

 _As far as I can tell, the reason Oracle is the sole maintainer of Java is
mainly historical (Sun legacy) and because no one felt an urge to do anything
about it before. I 'm sure it's going to change now._

Why? Neither Google nor IBM particularly require Java bug fixes from Oracle.
Google maintains an in-house OpenJDK already and IBM actually maintains an
entirely separate JVM. Also Google is hardly famous for its long term
commitment to stable APIs and old versions of software, quite the opposite.

It doesn't make much sense for a company to pay for the expensive work of
finding, fixing and backporting bug fixes to years old software .... all for
free.

~~~
the_grue
> or you can buy RHEL

Or use CentOS. Oh wait, that's exactly what tens or hundreds of thousands of
small businesses did and keep doing even today. Besides, that's not even a
good comparison - Red Hat Linux was and is mainly about packaging other
vendors' software, as opposed to Java, which is a monolithic piece of software
developed as a single project.

> Google maintains an in-house OpenJDK

Didn't know that. How can they do that while keeping compatibility with
Oracle's OpenJDK? Well, this information just reinforces my point, actually.
Google is already in position to ditch Oracle as an upstream and unite with
other parties to build a new foundation for open-source Java.

> Google is hardly famous for its long term commitment to stable APIs and old
> versions of software

Nobody likes to use other people's buggy code. I think you are mixing up two
different things. Google does iterate their own software at a fast pace, but
that doesn't mean it doesn't want the underlying infrastructure to be as
stable as possible.

------
Soarez
I wonder if this means a boost of marketshare for Zulu.

[https://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu/](https://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu/)

~~~
LudoA
Yep, same for Red Hat's support for OpenJDK (which goes up to October 2020 for
OpenJDK 8:
[https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013](https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013)).

------
hyperpallium
Surprise!

But this is great, giving a boost to openJDK (and maybe even Google's Android
Java), as Oracle did for Hudson->Jenkins. By the time they try to claw it
back, it will be too late.

~~~
Arkanosis
Isn't Oracle the main sponsor of OpenJDK? They sure want you to move to an up
to date (ie. 9 or 10) version of it.

~~~
Piskvorrr
They are - but I don't think they can somehow unrelease OpenJDK 8.

~~~
PedroBatista
Well, they did it with Open Solaris.

You never know with these people..

~~~
pron
Was Open Solaris also used by close to 10 million developers?

~~~
nameless912
Never underestimate Oracle's power to shoot themselves in their own feet.

------
jhawk28
The only thing that is weird here is that Oracle was able to get a release of
Java out in a year. Once the second public release is made, you needed a
business license in order to get security updates for older products.
Businesses are the only ones slow to update. Why is it immoral for Oracle to
charge a business for their maintenance services?

------
mythz
If you lie down with Oracle you're going to get fleeced.

~~~
pron
What other runtime offers free LTS? Does Python? Does Node? Go? Erlang?
Haskell? How is it getting fleeced to be able to buy (instead of get for free)
something that others don't offer at all?

~~~
gargravarr
Er, hate to break it to you, but some of the ones you list actually do offer
free LTS releases, e.g. Node:
[https://nodejs.org/en/download/](https://nodejs.org/en/download/)

~~~
pron
You're right, that's very generous. But as they don't maintain the VM and they
don't have a big standard library, it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper
than maintaining the JDK.

~~~
mythz
I can't think of any other popular language that requires payment for security
updates. Node supports an LTS version, Python support for 2.7 extends to 2020
[1] despite Python 3 being released in 2008, Microsoft still provides support
for .NET 3.5 Framework released in 2007. Java 9 was released in July, 2017
that's nowhere near sufficient time to force an upgrade.

This is just Oracle being Oracle and finding another way to fleece their
Customers, many of which were Customers of Sun who would never pull a move
with such contempt like this.

[1]
[https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/)

~~~
gargravarr
Ubuntu even provide an entire OS supported with security updates free of
charge for five years. Granted, they have considerably more developers and
commercial support from Canonical, but most of these languages have some kind
of sponsorship deal in the background.

Definitely Oracle being Oracle.

------
vbezhenar
What does it mean: "business users of Java SE 8 will no longer receive public
updates for the software after January 2019", "Those using Java for
individual, personal use, will continue to have the same access to Oracle Java
SE 8 updates as they do today through at least the end of 2020.". What's the
difference between business and personal use? I'm downloading JDK from oracle
website and using it for business use. I couldn't care less what Oracle thinks
about it. Will it work?

~~~
mcroft
I guess what you're really asking there is "is Oracle litigious?"

~~~
vbezhenar
I just wonder if it's about some business JDK (different from personal JDK) or
I'm just forbidden to download updates from Oracle website after January 2019
for business use? Can I stay on latest available JDK 8 update then?

It just sounds strange that I must restrict myself from upgrading. If someone
wants to protect its software from unauthorized use, they use electronic
licenses, expiration, etc.

~~~
mcroft
Traditionally, Oracle make their software available to anyone with a
development license, meaning you are not allowed to use it in production for
commercial use. This isn't so unusual, Red Hat's JBoss can be freely
downloaded, but you need to click accept on a license agreement.

What this means is that there is nothing to stop you from using the software
for commercial purposes, but you need to be prepared for a visit from Oracle's
lawyers.

------
croo
Oracle announcment link:
[https://java.com/en/download/release_notice.jsp](https://java.com/en/download/release_notice.jsp)

Does this foreshadow that Oracle Java SE 11 will be licensed or is this just a
fee to force users to move on to the latest version?

~~~
mcroft
In summary:

* The latest version of Java will always be free to download.

* There will be new versions every 6 months with zero overlap.

* LTS versions are available every 3 years, but _only for paying customers_

------
the_grue
I'm confused. Is this a cost-cutting move intended to push the industry
towards Java 9? If a business is able to switch to Java SE 9, will they still
be eligible to receive free upgrades?

~~~
the_grue
Okay, replying to myself after a couple of quick Google searches.

The situation is quite complex. A big part of the industry seems to be stuck
at Java 8 right now due to several reasons. One of them is the momentum Java 8
gained when it was released in 2017, 8 years after Java 7. It was a strong
release, bringing much-awaited features to the aging Java ecosystem.
Subsequent released didn't come anywhere close to that.

Another big reason is the uncertainty of the upgrade path. Java 9 was released
comparatively short time afterwards, and it is set to expire... last month.
[1] Unsurprisingly, many customers chose to stay with a stabilized, thoroughly
tested version of Java 8, rather than switch to a bleeding edge (in Java
terms, at least), untested Java 9 with a very short time fuse on it. Finally,
Java 10, which has been released recently, is also due to expire very shortly
- in fall 2018.

So overall this looks like a very aggressive monetization move on Oracle's
part, intended to extract $$ from customers who value stability of their
platform. It goes completely against the long-established tradition of
stability in the Java ecosystem, which is one of the reasons many of the
customers chose it, in the first place. I expect a massive migration towards
OpenJDK and a backlash in the community, which will ultimately push Oracle
aside.

[1]
[http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html](http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html)

~~~
pjmlp
Every time people suggest OpenJDK to move away from Oracle, they should learn
who actually writes OpenJDK code.

The roadmap is quite clear, Java 11 planned to be released in September, will
be the next LTS release.

Business will have one year to migrate to 10, used the 11 preview on their
test systems, and eventually migrate to the next LTS release.

I applaud Oracle here, business don't do anything unless pushed to do so.

I still have to occasionally program against Java 1.4, just because there is
this forgotten server no one wants to touch.

~~~
vbezhenar
There's good business opportunity is to fork OpenJDK and backport important
patches. May be IBM or Zulu will do that. Might become new de facto JDK. I
know that I'm stuck with Java 8 for years even if it means that I won't
upgrade JDK at all.

~~~
jerven
If you are willing to pay for support then why not just buy it from Oracle?

~~~
vbezhenar
Another company might be less greedy or offer it for free (to promote their
other products or just as a good will).

~~~
peoplewindow
The only other companies that have been proposed all make money by charging
for support.

And since when is charging money for work done 'greedy'?

------
neves
Confused here. When I compile a Java program, I can specify the target
platform. Even if I'm running Java 9, I can target Java 6.

It it just the case of change the runtime binary and continue using the
version the code was developed for? Probably as a matter of regression tests,
it is somewhat more risky than just using a security fix, but it would still
be very rare.

------
phkahler
What does this mean for Eclipse users? We do a lot of micro controller
projects and every SoC comes with an IDE which is often Eclipse with
extensions. These IDEs are often free. How will this affect that situation?

~~~
Piskvorrr
Eclipse seems to be the "user" w/r/t Oracle, if I'm reading this right.

------
DoctorOetker
In most instances, the Java-based applications you run are licensed separately
by a company other than Oracle (for example, games you play on your PC are
likely developed by a gaming company)," the firm announced in a statement.

"These applications may run on the Java platform and be dependent on Oracle
Java SE 8 updates beyond 2020. Accordingly, Oracle recommends you contact your
application provider for details on how they plan to continue to provide
application support to you."

To me this reads like they will intentionally "update" the user's Oracle JRE
such that it will fail to run applications by non-paying "business
developers".

If true I suspect the end-user runtimes will check jar's to see if it is
signed by the "business developer", and if there is a certificate signed by
Oracle confirming the "business developer".

The developer can not prevent the user from upgrading their Oracle JRE's.

This should have no bearing on _users_ using OpenJDK's JRE, but it may have
bearing on FOSS developers if a substantial fragment of their users are
running Oracle's JRE, depending on the interpretation of "business developer".

~~~
kalleboo
Sounds more to me like if you're a business using software that only works on
Java SE 8, and tomorrow Java SE 8 breaks in Windows 10.next or some huge
security hole is found, your choices are "pay Oracle" or "convince the
software vendor to upgrade the software to Java SE 9+". It's up in the air if
Oracle prefers the former (=they make money) or the latter (=they can drop
support for SE 8 and save money)

~~~
DoctorOetker
but how would that apply to their explicit example of a Java SE 8 computer
_game_ ? and the next paragraph is a thinly veiled threat to developers of
such a hypothetical game: developers, pay us or we will direct your players'
complaints to you (or have fun explaining to all your players on different
platforms to either install openjdk or fully remove and reinstall some old
copy of Java 8 SE from some mirror somewhere, and explaining them they must
from now on ignore the update notifications).

I imagine the Oracle JRE will show an error message dialog to the player,
containing a URL to this or similar page.

~~~
peoplewindow
_developers, pay us or we will direct your players ' complaints to you_

How is that even remotely unreasonable though?

The game example is poor for a different reason; Oracle don't seem to care
about desktop apps anymore and they want you to bundle the JVM with your app
anyway. Hence new tools like jlink and javapackager.

~~~
DoctorOetker
I think it would be very unreasonable if a player's "updated" JRE would refuse
to run a non-updated application that perfectly worked the day before, on the
simple basis of not the developer not paying Oracle. Consider a user on
windows with Oracle JRE, using some FOSS Java software. Suddenly he can't run
his Java application, because the FOSS developer does not pay Oracle, and the
FOSS developer gets flooded with hate mail.

~~~
peoplewindow
Who is suggesting that will happen?

I suspect you aren't quite sure about what "support" means here. It doesn't
mean your app suddenly stops working one day. For most apps it'll make no
difference in fact.

------
blincoln
I noticed this as well yesterday when I needed to install a JDK on my work
MacBook.

I have a slightly biased perspective because I do pen testing, reverse-
engineering, and other "hacking" work, but this is going to cause me a lot of
grief because Java 9 and 10 started making it clear that Oracle wants to
restrict use of reflection significantly - maybe remove it altogether. Clearly
there are ways for me to get around it, but a LOT of the tools I use are going
to be broken by default.

Googling "All illegal access operations will be denied in a future release"
indicates it's not just my kind of software, either.

~~~
peoplewindow
There is no sign reflection is going to be removed. That wouldn't be possible
anyway. The "denial" of use of internal APIs can be disabled with a command
line switch.

The point of the new warnings is to try and start slowly weaning the Java
ecosystem off the use of internal APIs, something to which it has become quite
accustomed.

------
fredrik-j
At work we're migrating to openjdk obviously. But I'm curious what is the cost
of a commercial Oracle JDK license? Is the price per server, per cpu/core, per
users?

Anyone got a ballpark figure?

~~~
papasound
At least Azul charges $12k per year for basic package (0-25 servers). Oracle
won't be any cheaper or few times more. That will be no-go for most mid-size
and small projects.

------
merb
well basically they force people to openjdk.

~~~
dboreham
Who is fixing security bugs in old openjdk releases?

~~~
anthk_
OpenBSD uses OpenJDK8 in -stable.

~~~
peoplewindow
And OpenBSD has large numbers of skilled VM engineers sitting around doing
nothing?

OpenJDK _is_ Oracle. They're the same people. If Oracle stop releasing bug
fixes to the open source project OpenBSD isn't going to step up and suddenly
start doing backports all themselves.

------
NullPrefix
Title is baiting.

Want updates for legacy? Pay up.

\--------- Edit:

Sorry, I might be a bit wrong. I thought non-business users wouldn't get free
updates too.

~~~
ThoAppelsin
How is it baiting when it perfectly summarizes the whole news, with no
misguidance, no unbased speculations? "Java SE 8 business users must buy a
license from January next year" is not a luringly reworded way that
(mis)guides the reader to think that something exciting is going on which --
this part is very important for something to be a _bait_ \-- actually is just
a speculation or is not happening at all. It rather exactly is what is
happening.

~~~
NullPrefix
It's doesn't summarize, because the key thing is in the second line of title.

>Or they'll no longer be entitled to updates and bug patches

They aren't converting a free product into a paid one. As I understand you can
use whatever you're using right now, it's just that you won't get free
updates.

IIRC Microsoft does this with old versions of Windows. Want updates for XP?
Pay us and we'll support it with bugfixes. Or don't pay us and get your
support on 3rd party forums.

\--------- Edit: Sorry, I might be a bit wrong. I thought non-business users
wouldn't get free updates too.

