Each new LTS JDK release gets a "caretaker" which provides the "official" OpenJDK build for that release. Azul gets a turn, Oracle gets a turn, etc. This is a stark contrast to pre-JDK9 where Oracle was the only "official" build.
Starting with JDK9, the licensing for an Oracle-provided JDK got a lot more murky, which seems to have been on purpose (to push Oracle into a support position instead of leader position). It cleared the way for Oracle to be "just another vendor offering paid support" along with IBM, Red Hat, AdoptOpenJDK, Azul, Amazon, etc.
This transition was started around OpenJDK7, where Oracle made a lot of effort to make OpenJDK the "upstream" and "reference" implementation for all other JDK's and the language specification.
While many OpenJDK contributors are on the payroll of Oracle, it wouldn't be fair to say they are steering the entire ship at this point, nor does anyone require a license agreement to offer OpenJDK binaries - with the exception of actually calling it "OpenJDK" (see agreement above for "sharing" LTS releases) - hence "AdoptOpenJDK" and "Zulu JDK", etc... all OpenJDK builds that don't call themselves OpenJDK.
It was one of the more surprising things Oracle has done in years... and many applauded the changes.
Also, OpenJDK has always been the name of the open part of Sun's, and later Oracle's JDK; it's just that Oracle has made that part 100%. It's not some separate implementation. If you go to the OpenJDK homepage and click the download link, you will get the OpenJDK builds by Oracle that are free and come without support. "Oracle JDK" is the support service. Yes, it's great that Oracle open-sourced the entire JDK, but its investment in developing it has increased not decreased.
Now, OpenJDK has no notion of LTS whatsoever. LTS is a service offered by any company for any version, although most companies offer it for the same versions Oracle chooses. In any event, you weren't referring to LTS but to OpenJDK Updates. Oracle leads the bug and security-fix updates for all versions for six months. After which, other contributors may step up to continue leading the maintenance of updates for old versions for as long as they won't, but they don't do original maintenance, but rather backport patches from the mainline.
~90% of the full-time OpenJDK contributors are employed by Oracle, and close to 100% of the changes to the specification are done by them (you don't have to take my word for it; you can look at the list of teams and projects, http://openjdk.java.net/census, and get the people's company at https://db.openjdk.java.net/people; all active projects and teams are led (and mostly done) by Oracle employees, except for some ports, Shenandoah, and backports to old releases. Don't get me wrong -- we work with contributors from other companies every day, and they do more and more and that's exciting and amazing -- but we also do more and more.
Anyone can build and distribute OpenJDK binaries, but to do so under a different license from the OpenJDK license requires obtaining the code from Oracle under a different license.
> The only licensing change Oracle has done is to make the JDK 100% free and open-source.
JRE/JDK8 had a very public, nasty license change during one of the late releases (200+ or something) that quite literally had a popup on people's computers stating commercial use of Oracle JDK would require payment to Oracle going forward.
That's quite an extreme change, and set off quite a panic in the Java world.
It wasn't until some time later Oracle made it clear this move was because, going forward, Oracle would be a vendor of Java that happens to sell support and a licensed JDK/JRE, among many others. This is when Red Hat, AdoptOpenJDK, Azul and others stepped into the limelight with this LTS release time-sharing agreement.
It may be true majority of the governing body overseeing Java's development is employed by Oracle... but that doesn't make these other things true. Oracle took very deliberate, calculated steps to put Java into the hands of OpenJDK and ensure they were a major contributor - but not the sole dictator of Java's future.
The reason AdoptOpenJDK, Red Hat's OpenJDK port, Azul and others are gaining so much ground these days is directly a result of the changes Oracle consciously made. It really is one of the few surprisingly good things to come out of Oracle in the past few years - and was extremely forward thinking.
Nope. It was neither nasty nor a change. JDK 8, is out of the ~5 year free public updates period, just like all JDK versions before it. The only difference from the past is that extended support is now cheaper.
The reason people see the popup that they hadn't before has nothing to do with any license change but with the mere fact that the JRE is now discontinued (and replaced with jlink runtimes). In the past, when 7 was out of public updates, people got a popup to update to 8. But 8 was the last ever JRE version, there's nothing to upgrade to, so people just got a popup that it's out of free public updates.
> That's quite an extreme change, and set off quite a panic in the Java world.
I don't know who panicked and why, but all JDK versions have always been out of a free public update period after about 5 years. I wouldn't call the drop in support prices an "extreme change," but I'm sure it's a welcome one.
> This is when Red Hat, AdoptOpenJDK, Azul and others stepped into the limelight with this LTS release time-sharing agreement.
First of all, none of those companies offer an 8 JRE, because OpenJDK was not yet open-source in version 8, and OpenJDK 8 doesn't have the JRE (it's missing Applets and Web Start, for example, the very things people need a JRE for).
Second, there is no such agreement. Oracle passes the leadership of backport projects of old releases when a new release comes out to whoever steps up. AdoptOpenJDK, by IBM, are barely involved with OpenJDK at all, and aren't in the same bucket as Azul and Red Hat, which do make significant contributions to OpenJDK.
> The reason AdoptOpenJDK, Red Hat's OpenJDK port, Azul and others are gaining so much ground these days is directly a result of the changes Oracle consciously made.
All of those are support programs for an open-source project developed, for the most part, by Oracle; they're not ports. Everyone is gaining ground mostly because support prices are lower and many have yet to upgrade past 8.
People panicked because, unlike before, it didn't just say "we're no longer updating this, but you can continue to use it". No, instead it was a shakedown for money if you continued to use it past some specific date listed in the popup. Painting that as normal is disingenuous, and rightfully led to a very public Oracle JDK exodus.
> First of all, none of those companies offer an 8 JRE, because OpenJDK was not yet open-source in version 8, and OpenJDK 8 doesn't have the JRE
Azul seems to disagree. They have a JRE7[1] and JRE8[2] offering.
> (it's missing Applets and Web Start, for example, the very things people need a JRE for).
I doubt people need a JRE for Applets or Web Start anymore. So that's not the reason. Old Legacy Java5 Applets aren't going to run on Java9+ without other significant changes anyway.
If I go to Oracle's website, it's difficult to find where to download any version of Java JRE or JDK without being bombarded with a plethora of "Subscribe and protect your Java investment!" and many other calls to pay for support and what-not. That's their prerogative. Nothing is wrong with Oracle wanting to charge people to use their binaries - and this reinforces my earlier points about Oracle stepping back into "just another JDK vendor" role. You may disagree with that exact phrasing, but I do not believe the distinction of contributing more code matters for the point I am raising.
If what you say about Oracle and their flavor of the JDK is true... well then Oracle has a massive optics problem because out here, outside the inner OpenJDK circle, the Java8 thing was quite a fiasco and definitely led to many organizations trying out Oracle's JDK "competitors" for the first time.
> they're not ports
Never said they were. They're OpenJDK source compiled and offered in a binary for free without any strings attached - far from what Oracle's messaging was at the time of all this.
[1] https://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu-community/?version=java-...
[2] https://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu-community/?version=java-...
It's not "painting it as normal." This is the actual normal. It's just that there has always been an update. It is also not true that you cannot continue an updated version past the end of update period.
> Azul seems to disagree. They have a JRE7[1] and JRE8[2] offering.
They really don't. They have an offering of something they call a JRE, but isn't. Try to run Applets or Web Start on it.
> Old Legacy Java5 Applets aren't going to run on Java9+ without other significant changes anyway.
Most Java 1.0 applications run on Java unchanged, and the JRE is to run Applet's and Web Start. Now there are custom Java runtimes created with jlink.
> If I go to Oracle's website, it's difficult to find where to download any version of Java JRE or JDK without being bombarded with a plethora of "Subscribe and protect your Java investment!"
Nope. Here's the official JDK from Oracle for non-support customers. You'll get bombarded with nothing: http://jdk.java.net/
> Nothing is wrong with Oracle wanting to charge people to use their binaries
But we don't. You're looking at the support subscription. The website clearly links to the 100% free JDK for people who aren't interested in support: http://jdk.java.net/
> but I do not believe the distinction of contributing more code matters for the point I am raising.
Oracle is to OpenJDK what Google is to Chromium. It is the main developer of OpenJDK (by a huge margin), and the steward of Java. That it's changed how it funds its investment in OpenJDK didn't change any of that. This is easy to see if you follow OpenJDK's development.
> the Java8 thing was quite a fiasco
What fiasco? You mean that some people insisted on using unmaintained libraries, ignored warnings about undocumented APIs for years, and then, when Oracle upped the investment and things started changing some ill-maintained dependencies broke? You realise that this hadn't happened before because they platform wasn't changing much because of a decline in investment in Sun's dying years?
> They're OpenJDK source compiled and offered in a binary for free without any strings attached
That's great, just like Oracle's binaries, which, again, are here: http://jdk.java.net/