> Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
There is no confusion on this end. You're ignoring the question that I'm asking, because the answer is unpleasant, and you're instead responding with non-answers, because looking like you're saying something when you're really saying nothing is easier.
Facts: We have evidence that Oracle doesn't care about the actual terms of GPL. We have evidence that they're willing to subject people to legal turmoil if Oracle decides they want you to pay instead of using the "free" license.
Once again, you have avoided the question (although you've spiced it up this time with some additional condescension).
You listed OpenJDK as a viable "free" option. Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
That's still not an answer. You're avoiding the question and... I don't know, answering some other question that no one asked, it looks like.
If a company has the option between OpenJDK and its "free" license or paying Oracle for a different license, why would anyone feel safe choosing the former, given that when you deal with Oracle, you deal with the risk of wasting as much money or more to defend yourself in court than the price of Oracle's paid option? Open source licenses are only as good as as the belief by the licensing party that the terms of the license mean anything.
> Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.