On 18/09/2014 3:17 PM, John R Pierce [via PostgreSQL] wrote: > On 9/18/2014 11:44 AM, cowwoc wrote: > > > > Yes, that's what I meant. I just wanted to reinforce the fact that you > > don't need to bundle multiple JVMs (Oracle, OpenJDK and GCJ). You'd > pick > > one and bundle it alongside PG and pl/java. > > I think a lawyer would have to pick apart the JRE redistribution license > to confirm that this use case is acceptable... the catch-22 is that > pljava is running user java modules, not just the software its being > distributed with, and I'm not sure the redistribution license allows > that. > > specifically... > > > License to Distribute Software. Subject to ..., Oracle grants > you ... license ... to ... distribute the Software ..., provided that > (i) you distribute the Software ... only bundled as part of, and for > the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii)... > > its that 'sole purpose' part that I wonder about. FWIW, thats from > the JRE 6 binary license, I didn't find the 7 or 8 one in a quick > google search.
Plenty of other software is already doing this (e.g. Atlassian JIRA which is very well known and has hundreds of plugins). Oracle's main intent is to prevent redistributing of a public JRE without their consent, where "public" means a JRE used to run system-wide applications. According to http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/jre-8-readme-2095710.html: "When redistributing the JRE on Microsoft Windows as a private application runtime (*not accessible by other applications*)" (Emphasis is mine) Whether it's user code running on it or not, it's still running as part of Postgresql so it's a private JRE. Gili -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Why-isn-t-Java-support-part-of-Postgresql-core-tp5819025p5819539.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
