>After being rescued by Oracle

Java was not rescued by Oracle. There was never any danger of Java going away or not having a proper sponsor. If anything was 'rescued', it was the SPARC/Solaris division of Sun.

At the time, and that is still the case today, Sun / Oracle was the single largest contributor to the Java Ecosystem.

Java will surely live but will it thrive without all those investment?

>At the time, and that is still the case today, Sun / Oracle was the single largest contributor to the Java Ecosystem.

So what? What does that have to do with what I argued?

>Java will surely live but will it thrive without all those investment?

Are you really trying to make the argument that had Oracle not bought Sun, that Java, one of the most popular programming languages, would have gone away?

Definitely, as proven by the high performance JIT and GC implementation available for Ruby and Python by the community.

Heh. OK. Oracle clearly saved Java, the most popular programming language in the world, which also drives much of corporate and government infrastructure. We live in different realities. This idea is so silly I'm not even sure if you're serious, given that SUN's troubles at the time are a matter of historical record. Java was never the problem. In fact, it was SUN's most highly valued asset. SUN never recovered after the dot com crash and industry transition to x86 and Linux, all of which led to the death of SPARC and Solaris. But let's leave it at that.

>as proven by the high performance JIT and GC implementation available for Ruby and Python by the community.

It's almost like interpreted dynamic languages are not quite as conducive to the same kind of optimizations as a statically typed compiled language. JavaScript, another interpreted dynamic language, did have massive amount of resources poured into its JIT and GC implementation. No question there were meaningful performance gains. Is it faster than Java? No. Is it ever going to be faster? No, not unless the language compromises on its dynamic nature.

And you're still chasing this red-herring. I never argued that FOSS can do a better job at evolving a programming language runtime, than a corporate sponsor. Why are you harping on that as if that is an argument to support the idea that java was in trouble and needed a bailout from Oracle?

Sure, where are the post Java 6 FOSS contributions from the community, if I may ask?

I made no statement about who contributed to Java and how much. So what does that have to do with anything?

Are you actually making the argument that had Oracle not bought Sun that Java, one of the most widely used commercial programming language then and now, would have .. what? Gone away? Disappeared?

Definitely, as proven by the high performance JIT and GC implementation available for Ruby and Python by the community.

> Basically you want free beer like Linux? Get a distribution from OpenJDK.

After the Oracle lawsuit, why should people feel safe believing that Oracle will respect the terms of the license instead of trying to extract more money and subject you to a costly lawsuit?

Oracle's lawsuit was for modifying the license.

GPL with Classpath exception covers you well enough.

Google skipped on the GPL license, so they don't get the benefits of that license.... unlike all Java users.

Do you trust Linux? It has the exact same license. Do you have any source where Oracle issued a lawsuit for lawful use of a license?

The same way they felt safe after Sun won over Microsoft.

... what? That's a non-answer.

Sure it is, Android Java === Google's J++, and the hammer shall fall just as hard.

Google had the opportunity to own Java, decided it wasn't worth the money, so now they should suffer the long due penalty.

That's still not an answer. You're avoiding the question and... I don't know, answering some other question that no one asked, it looks like.

If a company has the option between OpenJDK and its "free" license or paying Oracle for a different license, why would anyone feel safe choosing the former, given that when you deal with Oracle, you deal with the risk of wasting as much money or more to defend yourself in court than the price of Oracle's paid option? Open source licenses are only as good as as the belief by the licensing party that the terms of the license mean anything.

My dear, Oracle SDK == OpenJDK + JFR license + support.

If you don't want to give money to Oracle, there are plenty of other companies to choose from, including Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Alibaba, SAP, Azul.

Once again, you have avoided the question (although you've spiced it up this time with some additional condescension).

You listed OpenJDK as a viable "free" option. Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.

The ability to understand falls on the recipient.

Your favourite search engine has the answer.

If you feel like trolling, that is your problem, bye.

There is no confusion on this end. You're ignoring the question that I'm asking, because the answer is unpleasant, and you're instead responding with non-answers, because looking like you're saying something when you're really saying nothing is easier.

Facts: We have evidence that Oracle doesn't care about the actual terms of GPL. We have evidence that they're willing to subject people to legal turmoil if Oracle decides they want you to pay instead of using the "free" license.

Another non-answer that avoids the question.

> Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.

AFAIK IBM did want to buy Sun but backed out because of potential antitrust reviews.

Indeed, and no one else, specially not Google.