Oracle leads the bug and security-fix updates for all versions for six months. In any event, you weren't referring to LTS but to OpenJDK Updates. LTS is a service offered by any company for any version, although most companies offer it for the same versions Oracle chooses. Now, OpenJDK has no notion of LTS whatsoever. Yes, it's great that Oracle open-sourced the entire JDK, but its investment in developing it has increased not decreased.
#Redhat openjdk download#
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. Sure, other companies and individuals contribute, and some contributions are big impactful features, like the wonderful Aarch64 port by Andrew and others, but the lion's share of the work is done by Oracle.Īlso, 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%. Oracle is the company that develops OpenJDK in a similar sense to how Google develops Chromium. You are mistaken about some things (I am an OpenJDK developer who works at Oracle). It was one of the more surprising things Oracle has done in years. all OpenJDK builds that don't call themselves OpenJDK.
#Redhat openjdk license#
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.
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. It cleared the way for Oracle to be "just another vendor offering paid support" along with IBM, Red Hat, AdoptOpenJDK, Azul, Amazon, etc. 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). This is a stark contrast to pre-JDK9 where Oracle was the only "official" build. Azul gets a turn, Oracle gets a turn, etc. We could be splitting hairs here - but Oracle has indeed stepped back from being the "official" offering.Įach new LTS JDK release gets a "caretaker" which provides the "official" OpenJDK build for that release. The notion that "Copyleft Works!" is by compelling companies to open source their GPL'ed code. OpenJDK is good, but there are reasons people seek out custom implementations (massive heaps, pauseless GC, better tooling and monitoring, re-implemented IO, etc).Īll that is to say, contrary to OP's original assertion, it's not that Red Hat "couldn't" release some closed source JDK. OpenJDK is wildly popular as the defacto reference implementation of Java, due to moves Oracle made a few years back (on purpose to push Java language development into a more community-driven approach). Red Hat because they embrace Open Source above all else (or at least did at the time), and Azul as opportunists during the decline of Oracle JDK as a way to get Java users into their ecosystem (and eventually make money).
The part OP missed, and perhaps you may be overlooking, is none of these companies are required to use OpenJDK (and the GPL'ed code) for some unavoidable business reason. To this day I have no idea what was so funny, as he couldn't explain it in a simple manner and I lost interest.Īnyway, thank you Red Hat developers for all the work (minus the systemd "architects", but that's a different story).
The JVM crashed so hard, our expert Java developer laughed 30 minutes straight looking at one trace. I remember working with OpenJDK and Opendaylight on aarch64. Unlike other distros which touted aarch64 support early, but struggled to fix issues along the way. The bottleneck however paid off imo - Red Hat insisted on doing things slow and steady, so once things started landing in the distro, they just worked. getting a fully working distro for our intents at the time) was only seen after money were thrown and a contract was signed. This is nice and makes Red Hat look like an amazing OSS contributor, which I think they are.īut truth be told, things were not that easy when it comes to RHEL and derivates on aarch64.Īs contractors working on getting stuff working on aarch64, I know we struggled quite a bit to get CentOS7 to get to the level Ubuntu was at the time on aarch64.
0 kommentar(er)
