> On May 31, 2017, at 7:44 PM, suraj acharya <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer or familiar very well with licensing issues.
> The last time I was trying to deploy docker for another project I came
> across this :
> http://blog.takipi.com/running-java-on-docker-youre-breaking-the-law/.
Yup. I'm very much aware of this issue. This is one of the reasons why
there isn't an "Apache Yetus Docker Image" available from docker hub. It's also
the reason why Yetus does a build off of a Dockerfile... that file has the
directions in it to download the JDK from Oracle, including the cookie
acceptance. The ironic part is that by avoiding a binary and forcing the
download, our stuff is now broken because Oracle changed how things get
downloaded from their site. Can't win! :/
> I see a new blog by Oracle :
> https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/official-docker-image-for-oracle-java-and-the-openjdk-roadmap-for-containers
> .
Oh, I hadn't seen this one though. Thanks for passing it on!
But: Argh. Equating Puppet and Docker is ... not really understanding
the problem scopes of those two projects.
> I would like it if these are taken into consideration before we try to
> release with Oracle JDK. Else, openjdk should be okay I guess.
FWIW, the current Dockerfile has both OpenJDK and Oracle's JDK. By
switching entirely to OpenJDK, it pretty much removes any legal questions.
Another choice is Azul's JDK. But I'd need to do some reason on it.
That may be one way to do both JDK7 and JDK8 on U16.04.
