Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?
-
but who does this actually effect, developers?
-
@Donahue said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
but who does this actually effect, developers?
No, developers are clearly unaffected. It is the end users deploying apps on Java that have to acquire Java (under certain conditions.)
Nearly all vendors understand where their bread is buttered. No vendor changes developers for tooling. They always put the cost on the final customers.
-
that's not what I meant. I know the end customer always pays the piper in the end. But I feel like if an app relies on a newer version of java, won't it be bundled into the install? Or is this going to show up as an additional line item for the end customer the way CALs do when purchasing windows server?
-
@Donahue said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
that's not what I meant. I know the end customer always pays the piper in the end. But I feel like if an app relies on a newer version of java, won't it be bundled into the install?
Java cannot be bundled. Java has to be deployed separately. Always has been that way. Think of Java like MS SQL Server, only typically free. The customer has to deploy it as a requirement. And now the customer might have to pay for it.
-
@Donahue said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
Or is this going to show up as an additional line item for the end customer the way CALs do when purchasing windows server?
It shows up as a requirement that the customer is responsible for providing. Customers rarely price out requirements from third parties until a deployment is under way and only then find out how much things cost.
Compare to a typical ERP. They list Windows, SQL Server, and other commercial software requirements. But it is traditional to not consider the cost of acquiring, updating, and maintaining those systems (even though they are sometimes larger than the original product.) Java is simply another of these.
-
that makes sense, especially SQL and ERP
-
But since there is a GPL version, it doesn't seem like this really causes problems as long as your Java is up to date.
-
Dude Java is not irrelavant
Especially in the Linux server world, check stuff like Apache Solr. KillBill and Jenkins.
I think all will be fine with OpenJDK
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
Basically, if you have apps running on Java today, how are you licensing them?
I do have them, and I don't pay for it at all. Bring it on Larry Ellison.
-
@Emad-R said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
Dude Java is not irrelavant
Especially in the Linux server world, check stuff like Apache Solr. KillBill and Jenkins.
I think all will be fine with OpenJDK
If you install OpenJDK you can run production code off it, but you're not supposed to, especially if it's a commercial application. I just do it anyway because I refuse to deal with complex and ridiculous license schemes. If it takes more than 10 seconds to read about and understand your licensing system and also deal with it, it's too complex and I don't care.
I'm being mildly facetious... or am I?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
@Donahue said in Is there a Free to Use Java 11 Option?:
that's not what I meant. I know the end customer always pays the piper in the end. But I feel like if an app relies on a newer version of java, won't it be bundled into the install?
Java cannot be bundled. Java has to be deployed separately. Always has been that way. Think of Java like MS SQL Server, only typically free. The customer has to deploy it as a requirement. And now the customer might have to pay for it.
Reality is far different... well at least on Windows... and actually not that far... just... everyone shut up and listen to what I have to say!
A lot of people do bundle it. AOL bundled all of their Java based products with Java binaries if they were to run on Windows at all. For example AIM 1.1.19 was written in Java and has JRE 1.1.5 within the install path and that is used regardless of any Java version installed. AIM Enterprise Server as well, but I don't recall that JRE version, but it ran the installer that was packed rather than just having it bundled in the path.
And there are other examples I've seen over the years, a lot of times it's a matter of dealing with JRE changes over time, having to worry about whether the machine has the right version installed, and also having to deal with a separate installer if they don't and all that comes it with. It may be less common now in an era with better installers, but back when Java apps for client-side client-server environments were vastly more common, straight up static bundling happened, and it was not upgradable. It's a bad way to do it, but it was done.
Even so, in the modern era, some Java based things like PhpStorm and all related products in that family will also install their compatible version of JRE when you install. It just unpacks the installer and runs it quiet in the background. A lot of people try to uninstall JRE, including some IT people, primarily because of huge security issues in recent years. Again a reason to not rely on the client to install it.
I imagine it's all because relying on the customer to not only install JRE but the correct version is more complex than just installing the right version of MS SQL Server, because you can have incompatibility issues between even minor versions, even though that defeats the purpose of major/minor versioning in the first place.
Tons of apps which use python also install python, but the same argument can be used for it being the customer responsibility. Yet like with Java, these installers may not even use standard paths or even edit the PATH system variable to execute the binary, like some sort of third party version of "not invented here" syndrome.
I predict that if older versions require paid licensing the apps won't pass on the cost, they'll just violate the license and do like PhpStorm and install whatever they need. How will Oracle check? I've never met a Java programmer, at least of my experience level and years, that really cared about the licensing scheme or requirements, except when speaking in public and pretending we care, or using it as a way to complain about Sun or later Oracle. There may be some corporate exceptions to this because of liability, but on a personal level, rather than a corporate one, I can't think of anyone I've known that cared or even looked into caring.
-
-
