[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Oracle Java isn't Free and it's not free, either.

[Bill Erickson]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for sharing this.  It's another great example of why open source
matters.  It will never come back to bite you like this.

It's been my hope that we would use OpenJDK since Hatch was first
conceived.  Our reliance on Java 8, which was new at the time, and in
particular the new JavaFX library (for HTML printing) required at the time
we start developing with Oracle's Java.  We were using pre-release versions
of Java 8 and OpenJDK had not caught up.  When last I tested OpenJDK a few
months back, it still wasn't quite there, the FX bits being the finicky
part.  I didn't research further at the time, hoping it would just fix
itself by the time we needed it.  Clearly we need to take a more active
role in making it work.

Regarding the installer, we have to refactor the Windows installer to
accommodate the new browser extension bits.  The Java install code that
exists now in the proof-of-concept installer will not be ported over.  How
it's implemented, or indeed if it's implemented at all, remains to be
decided.  We could punt and simply check for a viable JRE and warn if none
is found, we could bundle OpenJDK (assuming we get it working), or
something else...  Input very much appreciated.  See also
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1646166.

-b



On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jason Stephenson <jason at sigio.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A Google employee shared this Register article on G+ over the weekend:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_
> java_users_non_compliance/
>
> I reshared it on G+.
>
> The upshot is if you install Java SE from Oracle then you could be
> liable for $40 to $300 in licensing costs to Oracle, depending on what
> you install.
>
> There is a way to install it so that you don't owe them anything, but
> that way is not the default, of course. You have to disable the
> components that Oracle considers to be not free (as in beer). These
> include, but may not be limited to, Java SE Advanced Desktop, Java SE
> Advanced, and Java SE Suite.
>
> As far as I know, only the Java SE JRE and JDK from Oracle are free (as
> in beer).
>
> The above has no direct impact on the use of Java for Hatch. It could
> have repercussions for those who install and use Hatch.
>
> I have not looked at the Hatch installer code, but if it does install
> Java SE from Oracle, I suggest that we investigate installing only the
> JRE from the package.
>
> As an alternative, we could download and install OpenJDK. It is is Free
> (as in Free Software) and does not include the non-free components from
> Oracle. OpenJDK is the default on most Linux distributions, and there
> are OpenJDK packages for Windows, provided by Red Hat, no less:
>
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/06/27/openjdk-now-
> available-for-windows/
>
> I have not tried it, and the blog says it is "intended for development
> of Middleware applications with Red Hat JBoss Developer Studio." So, it
> may not be viable for Hatch. Just the same it may be worth investigating.
>
> I'm not trying to be alarmist as there should be easy solutions to this
> situation. I'm also not worried about the future of Evergreen as regards
> this issue. I just think that we should be aware and take steps to
> prevent any of our users (and possibly the project) from getting into
> trouble with Oracle.
>
> Jason
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20161219/3097952b/attachment.html>