> Oracle seriously needs to be fought in court about this and their other actions.
The problem is, to win in court (not just go to court), you need actual grounds. What would be the grounds for suing Oracle in court?
For hiding the terms of the license? They didn't; the new terms have been as plain as any terms are in software licenses.
For changing the terms of the license? But Oracle was never obligated to supply new software on the old terms (unless the old license or some other contract obligated them to, but I don't think that's the case).
For changing the license terms on Java 8? But they had no obligation to continue to supply Java 8 under the old terms. (If you have an old copy of Java 8, the old license continues to apply, unless the old license specifies that Oracle gets to change it. Even if the old license does say that, it's not grounds for a lawsuit.)
So, specifically, on what grounds could you realistically sue Oracle?
Note well: I'm not an apologist for Oracle's behavior. I just don't think there's actual grounds for a lawsuit here.
The problem is, to win in court (not just go to court), you need actual grounds. What would be the grounds for suing Oracle in court?
For hiding the terms of the license? They didn't; the new terms have been as plain as any terms are in software licenses.
For changing the terms of the license? But Oracle was never obligated to supply new software on the old terms (unless the old license or some other contract obligated them to, but I don't think that's the case).
For changing the license terms on Java 8? But they had no obligation to continue to supply Java 8 under the old terms. (If you have an old copy of Java 8, the old license continues to apply, unless the old license specifies that Oracle gets to change it. Even if the old license does say that, it's not grounds for a lawsuit.)
So, specifically, on what grounds could you realistically sue Oracle?
Note well: I'm not an apologist for Oracle's behavior. I just don't think there's actual grounds for a lawsuit here.