The real damage that Oracle caused by their Android lawsuit, and by their JDK licencing scheme change, will reverberate for long time.
> and by their JDK licencing scheme change
The JDK licensing change was that Oracle changed the JDK from part-commercial part-open to 100% open for the first time in Java's history. On the commercial side, the change was from part-upfront, part-subscription to just subscription, which cut the price for customers by a factor of 5, I think.
What's important to remember about Java is that it's huge, and many companies make money off of it, and so companies have an interest creating FUD over Oracle's involvement. I can't speak for other parts of the company, but there's near consensus among Java users that Oracle has been a better steward of Java than Sun, both in terms of technical investment as well as licensing.
OpenJDK is the name of Oracle's (one and only) Java implementation project (take a look at the logo at http://openjdk.java.net/). Oracle JDK is the name of the commercially supported product built from OpenJDK, and Oracle also distributes the JDK under a 100% free license (http://jdk.java.net/).
While OpenJDK has been the open-source part of the Sun/Oracle JDK since 2007, Oracle recently completed open sourcing the entire JDK, so that there are no more paid features. The JDK used to be part-free and part commercial, and now it is completely free; you only pay Oracle -- or other companies --- for support if you want it. Other companies contribute to OpenJDK as well, but Oracle still contributes ~90% of the work, and all OpenJDK builds by all vendors are licensed by Oracle. So while you absolutely don't need to pay Oracle (or Sun, as you did before) for using the JDK any more now that it's 100% open, you should at least know that Oracle is the company that (primarily) funds and develops OpenJDK.
(I work on the JDK, i.e. OpenJDK, at Oracle)