

Oracle checks in -XX:+UnlockCommercialVMOptions in JVM - spariev
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/hsx/hotspot-rt/hotspot/rev/763f01599ff4

======
mseebach
The biggest problem here is the risk of the JVM losing its suitability for
large, scalable projects. Currently JVM on Linux is $0 in licenses. No matter
what $N is, it's ∞% more than 0, and the added cost of scaling to X servers is
X * N, not 0. Plus, of course, the ridiculous, soul sucking calls with a
"consultant" who will try to sell you Oracle licenses and insists on being
your pal and "how about I come out on Wednesday, these discussions are easier
face-to-face" to actually procure the bloody licences - and then sends you an
Excel sheet with 15 different term and payment options that you then have to
spend an afternoon parsing. Better for a cash-strapped start up to go with
something free instead.

This is _exactly_ the reason Microsoft has a BizSpark™ programme, and Ruby
doesn't.

~~~
mitchty
How exactly does an open source programming language compare to a cloud
computing program from Microsoft? I don't really see the link, at all.

Or are you equivocating Ruby with Rails running in a cloud platform? Your last
sentence doesn't really parse well.

~~~
chc
BizSpark is a program to give software free to cash-strapped developers. He's
saying that being free gives you a huge boost from grassroots support. Ruby
doesn't need to do anything special to get this support because it is already
free. The Microsoft stack is commercial, though, so they need to have a whole
specialized program just to almost level the playing field.

~~~
mitchty
Strikes me more as an equivalent to "first hits free" where the hidden cost is
as you scale you'll just end up paying more.

But that makes more sense thanks, I don't normally deal with Microsoft
products in that fashion.

------
asg
And so it begins.

While this leaves me with an icky feeling, being a java developer, I'm also
cognizant of the fact that one of the major criticisms of Sun from the
financial markets was that they could not monetize java very well.

It'll be interesting to look back in 10 years and see how Java has fared under
Oracle.

~~~
ColdAsIce
Could it mean more money for us Java developers?

~~~
nl
Probably not.

One way to look at it is like this: Previously, to increase performance of a
production Java app you would pay the best Java developer you could find a lot
of money to make it run fast.

Now, you might still do that, but first you will pay Oracle some licence fee
so you can use their commercial JVM options (and good Java developers are
likely to insist on using those feature because generally JVM tuning options
work very well). That take money out of the budget for Java talent.

~~~
mseebach
> That take money out of the budget for Java talent.

Unlikely: The C# runtime costs money, yet C# devs are as well paid as Java
devs.

~~~
jpitz
What?!!? When did they start charging for the runtime? Admittedly, it has been
a while for me, but I remember the runtime and the SDK being free. Is my
information out of date, or are you confusing it with Visual Studio?

~~~
mseebach
I'm referring to Windows.

------
binarycrusader
The important thing to note from the source comments:

commercial flags support features for which Oracle charges a fee for
production use, though they're free for development and/or evaluation. There's
no enforcement mechanism in Hotspot other than that
-XX:+UnlockCommercialVMOptions must first be specified in order to use them.

~~~
listrophy
Should read " _Currently_ , there's no enforcement mechanism..."

~~~
Maro
There's no software enforcement mechanism in the flagship Oracle Enterprise
DBMS either.

You can download it for free on the web.

From <http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/Oracle_Licensing>:

    
    
      A license is the "right to use" (RTU) the software and
      not the software itself. If you have a license, you can
      obtain a copy of the software through whatever means -
      order, download, use the CDs from your last project, etc.
      Please note that Oracle doesn't use software keys. You can
      just install the software and use it. It is up to you and
      your consciences to license the software before using it.

~~~
markokocic
Does that means that I can legally use their software free of charge if my
conscience doesn't prohibit me from using it unlicensed?

~~~
toyg
No. Every EULA you'll click through will include some clause restricting usage
to 30 days for evaluation purposes, except in a few cases (db client, beta
versions, XE edition, Technology Network stuff, Linux etc). And they do
enforce that clause as soon as they find you're using any of their stuff.
Plus, you need an account on their site to download pretty much anything, so
they'll know what you download, and from time to time you might get a call to
see how that "reviewing" is going, especially if you are not a customer yet.

It makes it very easy for people to get access to software and to learn,
however, especially if they're covered by a company who is already a customer.

~~~
zmmmmm
How does that play with the fact these changes seem to be checked into the
GPL'd code? Wouldn't GPL itself give you a separate license to use the
features regardless of whatever EULA Oracle comes up with?

~~~
tomp
Not if they are patented (and you reside in a country where software patents
are valid).

~~~
zmmmmm
I know there is a lot of debate about it, but as far as I understand it GPL is
still regarded as including an implied patent grant. Fwiw:

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents>

------
hapless
If nothing else, this proves that Oracle is serious about OpenJDK. If they
weren't planning to continue to provide the commercial/patented features under
the open source license, why have a gate/switch to disable them ?

------
mreinhold
The -XX:+UnlockCommercialVMOptions flag has been removed from OpenJDK
(<http://j.mp/u9gAJ9>). It was pushed to an open repository by mistake.

~~~
lambada
Not sure why this hasn't been upvoted more, especially as it is one of the
most relevant posts I've read in this thread.

------
dalibortopic
As Mark Reinhold, Chief Architect for Java SE at Oracle, pointed out on
Twitter [0], that patch was meant for Oracle's product VM, a minor fork of
OpenJDK, which has "commercial features" just like other vendors' VMs. Since
it was checked into OpenJDK by mistake, it has been backed out of OpenJDK
again within 24 hours[1].

Some of the key points of Oracle's Java SE strategy[2] are:

* Oracle plans to contribute the results of the combined Oracle Java HotSpot and Oracle JRockit JVMs to the OpenJDK project.

* The Oracle JDK and Java Runtime Environment (JRE) will continue to be available as free downloads, with no changes to the existing licensing models.

If you'd like to learn more about it and the ongoing JVM convergence work, I'd
recommend reading Henrik Ståhl's blog post from last year here:

<http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/oracles_jvm_strategy>

\- Henrik is Senior Director of Java Product Management at Oracle and runs a
group responsible for product strategy for Java SE, among other things.

Dalibor Topic, Java F/OSS Ambassador, Java Product Group @ Oracle

[0] <https://twitter.com/#!/mreinhold/status/142122264220008448>

[1] <https://twitter.com/#!/mreinhold/status/142102137130844161>

[2] <http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/173782>

